Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EAST KILBRIDE BURGH

Bill to make provision for the constitution of the burgh of East Kilbride in the County of Lanark into a large burgh and for other purposes, read the First time; to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Technical Education

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made to his Department on the organisation of technical colleges by the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the teachers' organisations since the publication of the White Paper on Polytechnics and the Report of the Pilkington Committee on Size of Classes in Technical Institutions.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will shortly be receiving a deputation on these subjects from the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, in his opinion, there is any conflict between these representations and the representations he has had from the Association of University Teachers on this subject?

Mr. Crosland: There is naturally a certain amount of disagreement generally

about the subject. Almost everybody agrees that there must be some degree of rationalisation and concentration in the technical college world. But the A.T.T.I., for perfectly natural and legitimate reasons, thinks, that this might become too rigid and inflexible. I have already reassured it that it will not be, and I hope further to reassure it when I meet it in September.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly the size of classes recommended in the Pilkington Report, because this matter is causing grave concern to many teachers in the profession?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — Training Colleges (Part-time Attendance)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will send a circular to teacher training colleges asking them to consider making arrangements on an experimental basis to admit a limited number of suitably qualified married women for courses during normal school hours.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Coronwy Roberts): My right hon. Friend has asked local education authorities and institutes of education in three areas to prepare experimental schemes of teacher training involving part-time attendance. Some of the courses will be specially designed to meet the needs of married women who can attend during the daytime but not on a full-time basis.

Mrs. Butler: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, which will go a considerable way towards ending the frustration felt by capable married women in this respect, may I ask him whether he could give any indication about whether a report on this matter will be published or made available, or what result is expected from these experimental schemes, and how it will be made known?

Mr. Roberts: We hope to get from these pilot courses information about the feasibility and prospect of wider developments. I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion about a report is well worth consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Shakespeare Company

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the amount of subsidy paid from public funds to the Royal Shakespeare Company during each of the past five years, respectively.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Starting in 1962–63, when the Arts Council first gave the Company a subsidy, the annual amounts up to last year have been £10,000, £47,000, £88,000 and £93,300. In addition, the Company has in the same period received £34,434 from the British Council in guarantee against losses incurred in touring abroad.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Knowing the right hon. Lady's interest in the theatre, will she use her influence with the Governors of the Royal Shakespeare Company and persuade them to use some of this public money at Stratford, where the inhabitants and visitors object to seeing only one new Shakespeare production this season?

Miss Lee: I would consider it most improper for a political Minister to interfere with the activities of the Royal Shakespeare Company. By leaving these matters in the hands of the Arts Council, we are guaranteeing the freedom of artists in this country which we all cherish.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tees-side

Mr. Kitson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the planned amalgamation of the four local education authorities in the Tees-side area, he will seek to implement a unified policy for secondary education there so that all four education authorities may reorganise their secondary education on the same lines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: When I consider the secondary reorganisation schemes of the three existing local education authorities involved, I shall take into account the fact that the new Tees-side Authority is to come into existence in 1968.

Mr. Kitson: Would it not be better if there were discussions at this stage be-

tween the local authorities? There is a good deal of fear in the Tees-side area that there is not enough co-ordination between authorities.

Mr. Crosland: I understand that the authorities concerned have already set up a Joint Steering Committee, which itself has set up an education sub-committee, which ought to provide the forum for discussion which the hon. Gentleman wants.

Oral Answers to Questions — Schools, Staffordshire

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware of the discontent and inconvenience occasioned by his letter of 27th June which, by refusing the closure of the secondary modern school at Hixon, has made impossible the promised September opening of a comprehensive school at Walton in Stafford; what steps he now proposes to enable the intention of his Circular 10/65 to be fulfilled; and whether he will receive a deputation from the Staffordshire Local Education Authority at an early date.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): The school at Hixon was built less than ten years ago as a secondary school. My right hon. Friend was unable to approve that it should be closed with the effect that part only of its premises would be used—as a primary school—having regard to the general shortage of school buildings in the district. I am aware of the disappointment that will result from the effects of this decision on the plans for opening Walton School. My right hon. Friend has recently received the Authority's full proposals under Circular 10/65 and is considering them. Arrangements are being made to receive the proposed deputation.

Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is one of the most unsatisfactory replies that has ever been received in the whole field of education? It is grossly unfair to the children in the area and monstrously wasteful of public funds in so far as two white elephants will be created, one the Walton School, on which some £250,000 has been spent, and the other the inevitable demand for a new primary school at Hixon. Will he think again and bear in mind what I am


going to say to him when I come with a deputation not to see him but, I hope, the Minister?

Mr. Howell: I am aware that it would be wasteful of resources now to turn a school which was built specifically as a secondary school less than ten years ago into a school for primary purposes, with the added factor that the proposition would involve transferring children from the Hixon area, a distance of seven or eight miles away. Of course, we shall be glad to hear anything the right hon. Gentleman or the local authority has to say to us when they come to see us.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of the failure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — Toxic Chemicals

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet received a report from his Advisory Committee on pesticides and other toxic chemicals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Committee presented a report in February, 1964 and a supplementary report in July, 1964 on the persistent organo-chlorine pesticides. The Government accepted and implemented their recommendations in consultation with manufacturers. Since then the Committee, besides continuing to provide advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the operation of Safety Precautions Schemes for pesticides and veterinary products, has been engaged on a major review of present safety arrangements for the use of pesticides in agriculture and food storage and possible improvements or extensions. A report on this subject will be made to Ministers, probably by the end of this year.

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the much more urgent question of organo-phosporus compounds demands a report very quickly, and that one of the most lethal of these, parathion, is more deadly than potassium cyanide and has already been responsible for many deaths? Will he take steps to get the Committee to report

on this with a view to banning its use as quickly as possible?

Mr. Roberts: The Committee has been asked to consider and advise on any improvements and extensions to the present safety arrangements which may be desirable. In particular, it is considering whether stricter criteria should be applied when considering new products.

Oral Answers to Questions — Voluntary Service

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total financial assistance granted by his Department to organisations sponsoring international community service projects by young people as a practical method of education in international understanding.

Mr. Denis Howell: None, Sir. Grants for this kind of activity are already made by the Ministry of Overseas Development. The Department makes grants in respect of "Service by Youth" work in England and Wales.

Mr. Judd: Is the Minister aware that in Germany the Government make available £80,000 and in France the Government grant £70,000 towards international work camps of this kind in their own territories? Would our own Government be willing to consider grants of this order?

Mr. Howell: I am informed that the amount of money being made available by the Department of Overseas Development and, therefore, by the Government in respect of oversease voluntary work is at the moment running at something in the order of £500,000, which, in view of the fact that the scheme started only recently, I should have thought was eminently satisfactory.

Mr. Freeson: While that is a very welcome figure, will the Minister accept that there is no sharp dividing line between the kind of service provided by young people going abroad and the activities of their own organisation in this country, both with their own young members and introducing foreign youngsters into this country for such work? Will he look at this again?

Mr. Howell: I think that this takes us on to the next Question.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the Minister's reply to the earlier supplementary question, would he consider making a statement to the House about the progress of schemes, such as the "Study and Serve" scheme, which was approved at the Ottawa Conference two years ago?

Mr. Howell: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take in response to the Bessey Committee report on voluntary service by young people in Great Britain; and in this respect what action he has taken to consult officially the organisations at the national and local level involved in this work.

Mr. Denis Howell: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Circular 15/66 of 2nd June, 1966, of which I am sending him a copy. This says that my right hon. Friend will make a considered statement on the implementation of the report and, before doing so, will take into account the views of interested bodies.

Mr. Judd: Is the Minister aware that many of the local and national organisations are very fearful that a heavy, high-powered national structure would kill local initiative, which is the essence of voluntary service and which is desperately needed in the country at this juncture?

Mr. Howell: I am very anxious, as soon as we can and as soon as the country can afford it, to get voluntary services going. I am equally anxious to see that it is not bogged down by a hierarchical structure such as my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will expedite the implementation of this, and can he say whether International Voluntary Services will be one of the organisations consulted?

Mr. Howell: Certainly that organisation will be consulted. I can say that this is something dear to my heart, and, as soon as the possibility exists of extending this service, we shall be happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — New School, Walton-on-the-Naze

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he estimates will be the completion date

for the new secondary school at Waltonon-the-Naze.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Essex Local Education Authority is planning this school on the basis of a completion date in December 1968.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Minister assure the House that this will not be affected by the cuts recently announced by the Government?

Mr. Howell: I am not aware that the Government have recently announced any cuts in the school building programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — North-East Essex

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why, when vacancies exist, some parents are being prevented in North-East Essex from sending their children to schools of their choice, as is their right under Part IV, paragraph 76 of the Education Act, 1944.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Member and explained that this does not state the position accurately.

Mr. Ridsdale: If I can provide the Minister with evidence to show that there are places available and that it is not an effective instruction, will he look at it again, because I have reason to believe that this is so?

Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman provides some evidence, I shall be happy to look at it. From inquiries that I have made of the local authority, it appears that there are no vacancies here. This is the age-old problem of more children wanting to go to a school than can be accommodated in it.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that under the tripartite system the whole idea of parental choice is simply nonsense?

Oral Answers to Questions — Immigrants (Children)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to encourage local education authorities and schools not to treat school pupils born of immigrants in Great Britain as immigrants themselves.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend does not believe that further special steps on his part are needed at present. The advice given to local education authorities in his circular is based solely upon educational considerations, and some of it is relevant to the pupils mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Winnick: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is somewhat unfortunate for children born in this country of immigrant parents to be themselves treated as immigrants? Would he not agree that there is no justification for such a step and, in order to discourage this practice, would he not agree that a fresh circular should go out from the Ministry?

Mr. Howell: As I have stated, we are governed entirely by educational considerations, and it is a fact that many children of immigrants who are born in this country still have considerable language difficulties. In those circumstances, it is those educational problems which have to be dealt with specially.

Mr. Winnick: But they are not immigrants.

Oral Answers to Questions — General Certificate of Education

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up an inquiry into the operation of General Certificate of Education examinations at both ordinary and advanced levels.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. This is one of the main functions of the Schools Council for the Curriculum and Examinations. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of two of the Council's recent publications—"Examining at 16-plus" and "6th Form Curriculum and Examinations".

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of these recent reports, on the physics examination for G.C.E. 'A' level, one of the examiners put in a model set of answers which his colleagues marked and failed him? Does not that indicate that such an inquiry is called for?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I am aware that incidents occur which cause a good deal of public unease. They always receive a great deal of public attention. The fact is that very intensive efforts are

made the whole time to improve these procedures. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Schools Council is still a comparatively young body, and although I have every sympathy with what lies behind my hon. Friend's Question, it would be premature now to conduct a brand new investigation into the whole matter.

Mr. Armstrong: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the "O" level has now outlived its usefulness and perhaps the better way is to abolish it altogether?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend will certainly have read one of the reports that I have mentioned, "Examining at 16-plus" which discusses in great detail what the rôle and future of the "O" level ought to be. But this is said quite reasonably to be put forward as a basis for general discussion and comment, and we ought to allow a certain amount of time for discussion and comment before any of us come to a firm conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nursery Education

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on nursery education; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Denis Howell: Several, but no special record has been kept. My right hon. Friend has replied that he is awaiting the reports of the Central Advisory Councils for Education, which are considering provision for children under five as well as other aspects of primary education.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient provision is being made by local authorities for married women seeking to return to education, by providing nursery education for their children?

Mr. Howell: Last December we announced that we would wish to extend this provision of nursery schools where there was a net gain of teachers coming into the educational service. We shall be following that up from time to time, and this Question helps in that direction.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the extremely useful pamphlet by Mrs. Elspeth Howe on the


subject, published under the imprint of the Conservative Political Centre?

Mr. Howell: I am ready to believe that in a special instance Conservative pamphlets may be of great use to us, and I shall therefore be prepared to look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Theatres

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether consideration has been given to the memorandum sent to him by Howard and Wyndham Limited requesting a subsidy of £50,000 for each of five theatres in Scotland and the north of England or alternatively offering to sell each of these theatres for £300,000; and what reply he has sent.

Miss Jennie Lee: The company has informed me of approaches it has made both to the Arts Council and the local authorities concerned. The Arts Council tell me that it is seeking to help the company by putting it in touch with Dramatic and Lyric Theatres Association, which is the organisation comprising Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Mr. Hannan: Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that no public subsidy will be granted to this commercial enterprise, which is concerned only with making money for its shareholders? Is she aware that part of the proposal is that the theatres should go to the local authorities during the lean summer months when less support is afforded to them?

Miss Lee: As my hon. Friend knows, the allocation of public funds is the responsibility of the Arts Council. The Council is carrying out a Committee of Inquiry into opera and ballet, and it will consider whether the theatres at present used for operas in Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh would be suitable as permanent homes for opera and ballet. If the conclusion is that they could be adapted satisfactorily, the possibility of purchase or lease will then be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — University of the Air

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further progress has been made towards establishing a University of the Air.

Miss Jennie Lee: The preliminary survey, including costs and television channels, has been completed. I will give the House further information as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Miss Lestor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I say that there are many who hope that this proposition is likely to become a little more concrete in the foreseeable future? Can my right hon. Friend say what degree of co-operation she has received from organisations already concerned with adult education?

Miss Lee: I have been very much encouraged by local authorities and the adult education world who know what we propose to do about a University of the Air. My only difficulty comes from people who at the moment are uninformed or misinformed about the nature and status of this project.

Mr. Hornby: Can the right hon. Lady give an indication of the costs involved as shown in the research which she says has been completed, and can she say what place this will have in the priorities of the education budget?

Miss Lee: I can give the exact figures, but I am not free to do so at the moment. I can only say that they are extremely encouraging to me, and I consider that we shall be able to do more for more people at less cost in the field of higher education once this project is under way than in any other part of the educational field.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the economic crisis and the need to concentrate all available educational resources where they are most needed, the proposals for a University of the Air will now be shelved.

Miss Jennie Lee: Most certainly No, Sir.

Mr. Hill: Would the right hon. Lady agree that the financial costs, which may be satisfactory but not disclosed, plus the costs in manpower are bound to bear hardly on the educational budget? If the University of the Air is not to be postponed, could she say what other educational services will have to be reduced to make way for it?

Miss Lee: An open university in Great Britain's circumstances today is not a dream. is not a luxury: it has become an urgent necessity.

Oral Answers to Questions — Schools (Staffing Ratios)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the permitted staffing ratio for schools of over 1,000 pupils.

Mr. Crosland: I do not prescribe staffing ratios for any size of school.

Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hertfordshire Education Authority is under the impression that he has allotted a higher number of full-time teachers for large schools with more than 1,000 pupils? If he has, can he confirm that they will be used for teaching and not, as the Hertfordshire Education Authority understands, to deal with the complicated administrative problems which arise' in such schools?

Mr. Crosland: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is muddling two things. One is the quota of teachers between different authorities which we try to allocate from the Department. This is based on a number of different criteria, on the type of school, and so on. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the quota which goes to the Hertfordshire Education Authority as a whole. What that Authority decides about staffing any school is entirely a matter for it, and not for us.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Holidays (Playground Facilities)

Mr. Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in his Department's discussions with the Liverpool Education Authority towards implementing his recommendation that school playgrounds, playing fields and play centres should be made available and open to children during school holidays and after normal school hours; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have asked each Regional Sports Council to carry out a survey of all recreational and sporting facilities within their area and then to consider what action is required to ensure their maximum use by the community. This will include educational

facilities and I anticipate that there will be co-operative discussions between local authorities and Regional Sports Councils when the surveys have been completed and studied.

Mr. Dunn: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but would he not agree that there is a need for greater use to be made of existing school buildings and attached playgrounds especially in areas of high density and traffic hazards?

Mr. Howell: I agree about that. I hope that many authorities will consider the possibilities open to them in advance of the survey and discussions which I mentioned in my reply.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that I raised this matter about two years ago, when I asked whether it was possible to instruct local authorities in areas where children had nowhere safe to play, to require school playgrounds to be kept open after school hours'? Has any progress been made in this direction? Certainly none has been made in my constituency.

Mr. Howell: The joint circular was sent out about two years ago to local authorities asking them to consider all these possibilities. I have indicated a course of action which suggests that next year systematically regional sports councils will be holding such discussions, and I hope that these will bring the desired result.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Building

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimate of the cost of secondary school building proposals put forward by local education authorities in reply to Circular 10/65; and how much of this is for basic needs.

Mr. Crosland: As I explained in my Answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 21st July, replies from the 162 local education authorities to Circular 10/65 are still coming in.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties at the moment, but can he say what priority he intends to give such building proposals


over and above basic needs requirement, and will he give an undertaking that he will give no priority over primary school building, whether for basic needs or replacement?

Mr. Crosland: I have made it clear in the circular, and repeatedly in public statements of various kinds, including in the House, that priorities are, first, basic needs, and, secondly, the replacement of sub-standard schools, particularly substandard primary schools.
With regard to comprehensive reorganisation, I made it clear in Circular 10/65 that there would not be a separate allocation specifically for reorganisation, although it remains true that authorities are free to use minor works allocations, basic needs allocation, and the allocation for raising the school-leaving age in such a way as to facilitate comprehensive reorganisation plans.

Sir E. Boyle: While welcoming, as we on this side of the House do, the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, may I ask whether it is still his intention to make a statement on Circular 10/65 before we rise for the Summer Recess, and can he give a date for it?

Mr. Crosland: I intend to make a statement, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to tie me down to the exact date. It will be made in time for the debate which I believe he has in mind.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent school building costs will be affected by the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Crosland: It is too early to judge. It will depend in part on how much of the tax is passed on.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the increase in costs which is bound to arise, and in view, therefore, of the increase in costs in tenders which will result, can the right hon. Gentleman say how he expects building programmes to be carried out within either the existing overall total, or within existing cost limits?

Mr. Crosland: One must not exaggerate what the increase in costs is likely to be. The Minister of Public Building and Works has said that, considered in isolation, the tax might add

about 2 per cent. to building costs, but that assumes that the whole is passed on and none is met by increased efficiency in the industry. I do not think that we should exaggerate the quantitative significance of this, but in any event it was one of the factors which I bore in mind in deciding recently to increase the cost limit by 8½ per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — Day Release

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made towards meeting the target of an additional 250,000 young people obtaining day release from employment for further education by 1969–70, as recommended by the Henniker Heaton Committee.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Between 1964 and 1965 the percentage of young people receiving day release rose from 31 per cent. to 32·5 per cent. for boys and from 7·3 per cent. to 7·6 per cent. for girls, but the age group was smaller and the actual numbers fell slightly from 276,000 to 269,000.

Mr. Brewis: Does not the hon. Member find these figures rather disappointing? What measure does he propose to increase the numbers taking advantage of day release?

Mr. Roberts: The percentages are more significant than the numbers, for three reasons—first, the fluctuations in the size of the age group; secondly, the increasing proportion of young people staying on for full-time education in schools or further education institutions, and, thirdly, because the full impact of the Industrial Training Act is still to be experienced in this field.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that progress under this Government has been a darned sight quicker than it ever was under that lot?

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Hogg: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Is not the hon. Member being grossly complacent about this? The target set by the Henniker Heaton Committee was not expressed as a proportion but


in absolute numbers. It looks as if we are going backwards and not forwards.

Mr. Roberts: I have said that the percentage shows a small but significant advance. Further, the Henniker Heaton Committee itself said that the industrial training boards would make the major contribution to advance in this field of education.

Oral Answers to Questions — Secondary Education (Reorganisation)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in cases in which he has ruled upon a local education authority's plan for reorganising secondary education which would leave some pupils in selective schools for an indefinite period, what action he proposes to take when that local education authority proceeds with its original plan.

Mr. Crosland: No such case has arisen.

Mr. Longden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sensible thing to do is not to impose a crash programme of universal comprehensiveness—which appears to be the purpose of Circulars 10/65 and 10/66—but to allow comprehensive schools to compete with existing bipartite schools and after a few years to judge which is the better system?

Mr. Crosland: It is quite clear that the hon. Member cannot have read Circular 10/65, if he describes the situation in that way. As for its being a sensible solution, apart from the fact that it has been rejected by the electorate, it is quite impossible to have this competition, because a comprehensive school cannot be comprehensive so long as there are selective schools in its area.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not wish to anticipate the debate that we intend to have on this matter, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question raises a very real point? Will he give an assurance that in cases like that of Manchester, where he has given contingent approval to certain schemes only upon certain building work being done, he will firmly insist on those conditions being fulfilled before final approval is given?

Mr. Crosland: This has nothing to do with the Question. If I laid down conditions, however, I should make sure that those conditions were met. The Opposition must come off the fence and make up their minds whether they believe in selection. At the moment they are trying to have it both ways and are adopting a completely inconsistent position.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision he proposes to make for denominational education to continue under a comprehensive system.

Mr. Crosland: In Circular 10/65 I asked local education authorities to include voluntary schools in their plans for the reorganisation of secondary education.

Mr. Wall: Will not comprehensive education mean the concentration of a larger number of pupils in a smaller number of schools? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to safeguard parents' rights in respect of denominational education for their children?

Mr. Crosland: I think the hon. Member will find that the point that he has in mind—which is a real one, concerning the size of classes—is met in the Education Bill which is now before the House and which we shall debate when it comes to us.

Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend indicate the degree of co-operation he has had from denominational schools on this point? Is he aware that many members of denominations are very grateful to the Government for implementing the increased grant, which has enabled them to go ahead with forward-looking plans for education?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his fair statement of the case. I want to stress once again the very high degree of co-operation that we have received from denominations in our consideration of this problem.

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will fix a time limit for the operation of any interim scheme of secondary schools reorganisation which involves selection for different types of school.

Mr. Crosland: It would not be practicable to fix an exact time limit; but Circular 10/65 stressed that such schemes should be regarded only as an interim stage in development towards a fully comprehensive system.

Mr. Armstrong: Can more urgency be given to this very difficult problem? Where parents are compelled to choose at 13—as many schemes provide for—between schools offering different facilities and proceeding on different vocational lines this is social selection at its worst, and we want it ended as quickly as possible?

Mr. Crosland: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it is a difficult problem. As he knows we have approved about four major schemes of this kind so far, and in each case I have made it clear to the authority that the scheme is acceptable only as an interim measure, and that it will have to give way eventually to a fully comprehensive scheme. But it is not practicable to lay down a time limit and to state a particular year by which these schemes should be altered.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not wish to debate the matter now, but does the Minister recognise that the approval he gave to the Doncaster scheme was very much welcomed in many quarters, and that it will be a much more serious issue if the suggestion is that any such scheme as that will be ruled out for the future, except as an interim measure?

Mr. Crosland: I have made my position clear both here and to the Doncaster authority. These schemes are not suitable for a long-run solution, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given, but if they come forward in the interim period it would be wrong on my part to reject them out of hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — Curzon Street House

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department will leave Curzon Street House.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In 1968.

Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we certainly do not wish to hamper the work of such a vital Department, it will be helpful to

return this and other Government-occupied buildings in Central London to the purposes for which they were built, and that such dispersal of Government offices, does help the economy?

Mr. Roberts: The new accommodation will certainly bring together many parts of the Department, at present inconveniently and uneconomically scattered in a number of offices in Central London.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sports Clubs and Organisations

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional grants will be made to sporting clubs and organisations in order to offset the impact of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Denis Howell: Where sports bodies receive grant towards their administration costs my right hon. Friend will be prepared to treat the cost of the tax as a cost increase to the extent that effect of the tax cannot be offset by staff economies.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that the Treasury estimates that this tax will take £500,000 a year from amateur sport alone? Does he realise that this will be a very heavy burden for many sporting clubs and organisations? Has he no proposals to make to help those clubs which are facing a crushing burden because of this tax?

Mr. Howell: I have just stated that in respect of all the main governing bodies of sport which carry the main burden of employing professional staff for sporting purposes the tax will be offset by the grant that we shall give them. As for the thousands of small clubs affiliated to the 200 governing bodies of sport, to deal with those clubs which do not receive grant at the moment would be an impossibility.

Mr. Rose: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but will he consider the possibility of new sources of tax, such as a further levy on betting, or a national lottery?

Mr. Howell: That question is not one for me at the moment, but I am prepared to consider anything at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions — University of Wales (Computers)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision for computer


machines has been made in the colleges of the University of Wales in accordance with the recommendations of the Flowers Report.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Orders have been placed with manufacturers for new computers for each of the constituent colleges.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that if and when these computer machines are issued to colleges of the University of Wales they will be made available for joint use by industrial concerns in Wales in appropriate cases, subject to the university colleges having the first claim upon their use?

Mr. Roberts: I can certainly give that assurance, and add that it is not a question of "if" but of "when". Delivery dates are now in hand and the first machine will be delivered in September of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Teachers (Retirements)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many male teachers under retirement age left primary and secondary school teaching in 1965.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I regret that this information is not yet available.

Mr. Archer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the number is likely to be fairly substantial? Is his right hon. Friend in a position to indicate the principal reasons for this?

Mr. Roberts: It would be best to await the full statistics and then to consider exactly what are the reasons for the decline, however great it may be. I do not expect that we shall be in a position to examine this carefully until about March of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pay Pause

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what instructions he has given to his nominees regarding Whitley Council negotiations during the period of the Government pay freeze.

Mr. Crosland: The attention of the Official Side members of the Departmental Whitley Council concerned with pay questions has been called to the

statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th July.

Mr. Harrison: Is this not an interference in the negotiating machinery, about which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite waxed so indignant on a previous occasion?

Mr. Crosland: I have a very strong suspicion that the hon. Member is muddling up the Burnham Committee with the Whitley Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — Industrial Training

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans there are to establish a chair of industrial training, and to develop a department to specialise in this field of study in any centre of higher education.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: A Committee of the Central Training Council is considering the possible creation of a national centre of industrial training in association with an institution of higher education, and a number of institutions have shown interest in the subject. The establishment of a chair would be a matter for the university concerned.

Mr. Fowler: If such a department were established, does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be suitable to establish it in a university in one of the development areas?

Mr. Roberts: I would not wish to offer a view on the merits of a national centre until the Central Training Council has fully considered every aspect of this important matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Universities (Adult Scholarships)

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications were received by his department for adult scholarships to universities in 1965; how many were awarded; and whether it is his intention to increase their number.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: 112 applications for mature state scholarships were received and 24 of the 30 available scholarships were awarded. My right hon. Friend is not proposing to increase the number of these scholarships.

Dr. Gray: Will my hon. Friend say whether his aim is to ensure that all adult


students, of any age, if they have the necessary qualifications, should be enabled to go to university?

Mr. Roberts: There are, of course, other ways, apart from this arrangement, in which mature matriculants, if I may call them that, can enter university. The limiting factor in awarding these scholarships is not finance, or the arrangements as they now stand, but the shortage of suitable candidates.

Oral Answers to Questions — Direct Grant Schools

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to assist local education authorities to organise secondary education on comprehensive lines where direct grant schools are refusing to co-operate.

Mr. Crosland: In Circular 10/65 I asked local education authorities to open discussions with the governors of direct grant schools in which they take places. I also asked them to include in the plans to be submitted to me a statement about their future intentions as to taking up places and about the extent to which direct grant schools were participating in their plans. I shall consider this whole question further when I have studied the information in the plans.

Mr. Armstrong: Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that there are many hon. Members on this side who would resent the continued expenditure of public money on schools which would perpetuate all the injustices of inequality?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. I think that the Government's policy is clear on this. We want to proceed by co-operation. This is why I want to allow a reasonable time for discussions between the schools and the authorities, but, in the last analysis, as my hon. Friend has said, the persistence of a wholly selective field of education like this would bring the future of the direct grant Regulations into question.

Mr. Hornby: Would the right hon. Gentleman now give an undertaking that his letter to the local education authorities is in no sense regarded as a threat to the future existence of the direct grant schools, which are very highly regarded in many parts of the country?

Mr. Crosland: There is no question of a threat. What I made perfectly clear in the circular, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was that we want discussions to occur at a local level between the schools and their authorities. I am very anxious that these discussions should go on in an amicable and co-operative frame of mind. But, of course, it must be made clear that, in the last analysis, we on this side of the House are against the 11-plus.

Oral Answers to Questions — Training and Supply of Teachers (National Advisory Council)

Mr. Neave: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet come to a decision on the future of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I cannot add at present to what I said on this subject during the debate on the Address on 25th April.

Mr. Neave: Will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his decision on this point? Would not this be of great value to the reconstituted council in the long-term planning of education?

Mr. Crosland: I consider and reconsider this question a great deal. I have received far less detailed advice on what I ought to do than I thought I would receive. The hon. Member knows the difficulty—this is a very large body, consisting of well over 50 people, and it is doubtful whether a body quite so large is the right one to have responsibility for the crucial, central question of the supply and training of teachers. I should, nevertheless, like to find some answer to this very difficult problem of how best to consult.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (STATEMENT)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Secretary of State for Defence at a Press conference in Kuala Lumpur on 5th July about the reduction of British forces in South-East Asia represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State said


that it was the aim of the British Government to reduce British Forces in South-East Asia to the level planned before confrontation, that is to say, the level planned by a Conservative Government? Is that still the Government's policy, or do they intend further cuts in that area in pursuance of the package announced by the Prime Minister last week?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said then is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We do intend to reduce it, as he stated, but, as I have said a number of times, we are always on the watch to see if further economies can be made in order to reduce the overseas expenditure on our task in fulfilling our commitments.

Mr. Tapsell: How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile the Government's recent promise to Australia that we will maintain a substantial presence in the Far East with his almost simultaneous promise to his Parliamentary Party of massive reductions in our Forces there?

The Prime Minister: The phrase "massive reductions" referred to the reductions in the number of troops which we had there for confrontation. We plan to take them out and reduce in total to the number which would have been required if there had been no confrontation. There is nothing inconsistent with that statement in what was said to the Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. Heath: How many troops will be brought back if the strength of the Forces is reverted to that before confrontation?

The Prime Minister: It has never been the practice to say exactly how many troops would have been in that area if it had not been for confrontation. My right hon. Friend refused to answer that Question when it was asked. As soon as we can make a fuller statement, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Heath: Did the Secretary of State not mention a figure of 16,000?

The Prime Minister: He used that phrase. He said that he was using it purely as illustration. There was no decision at that time: it was early on in

his visit. He has been looking hard at the question of how many ought to be brought out and how quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS SALES (INFORMATION)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will amend the security ban on information about arms deals.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: While I realise that there are certain difficulties about this, is it not time that the Prime Minister had another look at this matter and allowed Ministers to give more information to Parliament about it? Now that we have an arms salesman who is determined to maximise arms sales, how can this House properly judge whether he is fulfilling his task properly if we do not know what contracts he succeeds in landing and what contracts he fails to land?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the practice of not disclosing information about arms sales is the normal safeguard of the customer's interest. If one disclosed too many details, the sales would, of course, fall. The hon. Member was a Minister responsible for defending this policy of not giving details, and our practice is exactly the same as the practice which he defended.

Mr. Powell: Is not this ban extremely convenient for the Prime Minister, in view of his undertaking that we should not be supplying arms even indirectly for the fighting in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: This has nothing to do with the—[Interruption.] No, it has nothing to do with this subject. We are pursuing exactly the same policy which right hon. Gentlemen opposite pursued when they were in office.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that any precedent set by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is probably one which we ought to depart from?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (T.U.C. CONFERENCE)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the invitation to address the Annual Conference of the Trades Union Congress this year in his official capacity.

The Prime Minister: I have received no such invitation, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the Prime Minister will not receive an invitation this year. Since, in the past, he has himself asked to be invited, may I ask him if, were he to be invited this year, he would be prepared to bring forward to the T.U.C. practical proposals for increasing productivity and for getting rid of the rule book which would give incentives to the unions?

The Prime Minister: I have had no invitation, so the latter part of that supplementary question is hypothetical. Nor have I ever asked to be invited to the T.U.C. I was once appointed a fraternal delegate from the Labour Party and, in that capacity, addressed the T.U.C. in September 1964. As to references to rule books and things of that kind, I have already made statements on this subject, not to the T.U.C. but to the particular union in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if, during his forthcoming United States visit he will urge full recognition for the Chinese Peking Government and an invitation to join the United Nations Organisation.

The Prime Minister: The United States Government are already well aware of our position on these questions which was set out in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 16th December last.

Mr. Bidwell: Will not my right hon. Friend; re-emphasise this British view when he goes to Washington, and will not he agree that, in the interest of world peace, he should emphasise that the only feasible Government of China should be invited to come before the bar of world opinion by being invited to join the United Nations Organisation? Meanwhile, may I wish my right hon. Friend all the best on his trip to Washington?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his concluding words. I do not think that this needs any re-emphasising on the United States Government, who are well aware of our position. As I have said, this was one of

the central themes of my address to the United Nation's General Assembly last December.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whatever the merits of Communist China getting a seat, the Nationalist Government in Formosa at least has the same right to remain there—[Interruption.]—as the representative of the Ukraine or Byelo Russia in the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I do not know that pursuing that subject would be particularly helpful to the aim which, I should have thought, was the same in the three parties in this House, and that is to see that the representative of China to the United Nations is the Chinese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give an assurance that, in negotiations to join the Common Market, he will accept the principles of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the foreign affairs debate on 11th July.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Prime Minister confirm that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to apply for membership of the E.E.C.? Would he not further agree that the recent agricultural agreement in Brussels makes it imperative that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that agricultural policy if he is to achieve his own policy in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I certainly confirm that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to join the Economic Community if we can get satisfactory conditions to ensure British and Commonwealth interests. I am not so defeatist as the hon. Gentleman to think that all decisions made in the Community are immutable and incapable of taking into account British interests.

Mr. Anderson: Since my right hon. Friend's reply on 20th July to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery


(Mr. Hooson), the Minister of Agriculture has said that there could be no White Paper on the agricultural implications for the United Kingdom of our accession to the Common Market. Would my right hon. Friend reconsider the publication of a White Paper in the light of this agreement?

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend had good reasons for saying that it is difficult, in a White Paper or in any other way, to make precise calculations. It is a fact that since target prices have now been fixed for a number of additional agricultural commodities, and not just for cereals and a few others, it might be possible to begin to make some calculation of the effect on the cost of living in this country and on our import bill of being forced to accept prices at that level and to impose corresponding levies on imports of Commonwealth produce. Whether it is possible to make really worth-while calculations I should like to examine further.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of moving our agricultural policy somewhat in line with the Six so that eventually the transition may be made easier?

The Prime Minister: I think the right thing for this country is that we should continue to pursue an agricultural policy which is right for our own agriculture and trade in foodstuffs. Of course, if and when negotiations become possible with the Economic Community, the question of what changes will be needed in our agricultural or other policy is a matter about which we will have to negotiate and then put into effect.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the sensible probings which this Government have initiated in regard to Britain's possible entry into Europe go much further than the narrow sphere of the E.E.C.?

The Prime Minister: The probings which are taking place with E.E.C. countries of course relate principally to the position of Britain and other E.F.T.A. countries in relation to the E.E.C. But, as my lion. Friend knows—he may have this in mind—we are in constant touch with EF.T.A. about further developments within E.F.T.A.

VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: Q7. Mr. Winnick asked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the exchanges which have recently taken place with the United States of America over extending United State's air attacks in North Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the speech I made in the debate on 7th July or to my statement of 29th June.

Mr. Winnick: Will the President of the United States be told that the continued bombing of North Vietnam will not lead to a settlement and to an American victory? Could the President also be told that those of us who are very critical of his policy want the Communists to negotiate, but question whether President Johnson really requires or wants a negotiated settlement in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: The President of the United States is fully aware of the position of Her Majesty's Government. This was explained to him last December and further exchanges and public statements have confirmed our position. I will certainly consider whether I should tell the President of my hon. Friend's views, but I think it right to say that my view is that I am absolutely satisfied of the sincerity of the President and the American Government in wanting unconditional negotiations; and, if I were to have a chance, I would convey to Hanoi my hon. Friend's views that Hanoi should be similarly willing to enter into negotiations.

Mr. Mendelson: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the two statements made by Marshal Ky in the last four days, in which he called on his allies to support the invasion of North Vietnam and the destruction of the North Vietnamese Government and tried deliberately to embroil the United States in war against China? Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that there is now urgent need for a change of Government and attitude in Saigon if real negotiations are to start?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of these statements. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made


clear, we hold no brief for statements made by the Government in Saigon—and as to those particular statements, if correctly reported, I totally disagree with them.

MOSCOW TRADE FAIR

Mr. Hector Hughes: Q8. Mr. Hector Hughes asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects of increased trade between Great Britain and Russia as a result of his visit to the Moscow Trade Fair, with particular reference to the trade between Russia and Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Answers I gave to Questions on 19th July.

Mr. Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Russians to the proximity of North-East Scotland to Northern Russia, particularly since Russian goods so often come to Aberdeen in vessels which go away empty?

The Prime Minister: I did not, in my most recent talks with Mr. Kosygin, go into that degree of geographical similaritude, although during previous trade talks when I have been there I have, as the House knows, particularly pressed on them our desire for them to buy more herring from this country. As for Scottish firms, I did not specifically press that they should place more orders in Scotland, although there were, of course, some very distinguished representatives of Scottish trade exhibiting at the Fair.

O.E.C.D. (PRODUCTIVITY REPORTS)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Q9. Mr. Ian Lloyd asked the Prime Minister whether he will refer to all Departments of State directly involved in the implementation of the Government's new economic measures the report of the Productivity Bargaining Team, comprising members of the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industries, on its visit to the United States of America under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone.

The Prime Minister: I have seen the interesting article in British Industry and am sure that it will also have been widely read in Government Departments. I understand, however, that the full report has not yet been produced.

Mr. Lloyd: Would the Prime Minister take this opportunity of emphasising that where increases in income are directly and demonstrably related to increases in productivity, it is in the national interest that both should take place?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have always stressed the importance of pay and productivity agreements where one can be really satisfied that it is not just an aspiration about productivity but where there are clear guarantees that the additional income will be earned out of changes in productivity, particularly changes in manning.

Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say whether, when the conference on productivity meets in September, it will have before it the revised National Plan announced by the First Secretary last night?

The Prime Minister: The Productivity Council, when it meets in September, will have all relevant information before it, including the information we tried to give the House yesterday about the relevance of the immediate steps to ensure continued growth in this country.

RHODESIA (ARREST OF UNITED KINGDOM CITIZENS)

Mr. Faulds: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to protect British citizens against the action of the illegal regime at Salisbury University.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I have been asked to reply.
I have called for a full report from Mr. Hennings, Head of the British Residual Staff in Salisbury.
Meanwhile, I have instructed him to make immediate representations to the appropriate officials in Salisbury about the arrest at the instance of the illegal regime of United Kingdom citizens for whom we are responsible, and to take


all possible steps to protect their interests.
A member of his staff has this morning seen a number of those detained.

Mr. Faulds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will regard that Answer as totally unsatisfactory in the matter of the protection of British lives? As we are the legal Government, would it not be more responsible to forestall the breakdown of law and order and the inevitable African insurgency by putting down this colonial rebellion in the customary manner, by military means?

Mr. Bottomley: In present circumstances. I think it most unwise to pursue the matter in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Steel: As one who knows two of the persons now detained, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it absolutely clear that the whole country will feel revulsion at the detention without trial of British subjects?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. That will be made clear, and it is reinforced by the question which the hon. Gentleman has now put.

Mr. Winnick: Will it be possible for consultations to take place between the Government and the Leader of the Opposition about the way in which certain Tory M.P.s attend public meetings with the aim of giving comfort to the illegal regime in Rhodesia?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must have something to do with the original Answer.

Mr. Maudling: In answer to his hon. Friend's question about the use of military force, the Secretary of State used the phrase "in present circumstances". Will he make it absolutely clear that in no circumstances will this be contemplated?

Mr. Bottomley: It has been made clear earlier that there is no intention of using force. By the phrase "in present circumstances", what I wished to convey was that it would be unwise even to talk about such a subject.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say what effective power we

have to enforce our wishes on this illegal regime?

Mr. Bottomley: We have none, Sir.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this action is all the more sickening when this university was one of the few places left where intellectual freedom flourished? Is he aware that to close down a university is a typical hallmark of the police State? Does this action, by which British subjects have been detained without trial, affect our attitude to the resumption of talks about talks?

Mr. Bottomley: What the hon. Gentleman has suggested in the earlier part of his supplementary question gets the support of us all. With regard to the talks, I think that we must await the report before we are able to consider further the full implications of what action should be taken in the future.

Mr. Wall: Does not the fact that the university was to close down for the summer holidays this week emphasise the foolishness of this action? Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Government funds will continue to be made available to the university as long as it remains open and multiracial?

Mr. Bottomley: That is a separate question, which should properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. I think that it is premature to speculate about the matter.

Mr. Evelyn King: In condemning the action of the Rhodesia authorities, which I wholeheartedly do, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that the moral validity of his position is weakened because, weakly, he has not used similar forthright language when other African States have behaved similarly and done equal acts of tyranny?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that I have used forthright language on other occasions, and will continue to do so whenever it is justified.

Mr. John Hynd: As the Minister has clearly announced to the House that the United Kingdom Government have no effective powers to administer this territory or protect our citizens in it, is it not time that we reviewed our policy, and


considered handing over the matter to an authority that can handle it?

Mr. Bottomley: That is another question.

Mr. Faulds: Owing to the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST AUGUST—Selective Employment Payments Bill.
Completion of the Committee stage.
TUESDAY, 2ND AUGUST—Supply [5th Allotted Day]: Committee.
There will be a debate on the Problems of the Development Areas, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.
Motions on the Motor Vehicle (Tests) (Extension) Order, the Variation of Speed Limit and the Speed Limit on Motorways Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD AUGUST—Supply [6th Allotted Day): Report.
It will be proposed that the Questions should be put on all outstanding Votes so soon as the Orders of the Day are entered on.
Second Reading of the Consolidation Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on the Procurement and Sale of Arms and Aircraft.
Second Reading of the Singapore Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Building Control Bill and to the Docks and Harbours Bill.
THURSDAY, 4TH AUGUST—Selective Employment Payments Bill.
Report and Third Reading.
FRIDAY, 5TH AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Singapore Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Reserve Forces Bill.
Motions on the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Order, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Amendment Order, the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations and the Solus Petrol Orders.
Completion of the remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords].
MONDAY, 8TH AUGUST—The proposed business will be: Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
There will be a debate on Crime until about eight o'clock, to be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.
As to the Recess, it may be helpful for the House to know that it will be suggested that the House should return on Tuesday, 18th October. This will result in a shorter Summer Adjournment than usual, but I am confident that this will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Heath: Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the House gives us the date on which we will return after the Summer Recess without having given us the date on which we shall rise for the Recess? Here is another example of the Government working back to front, and standing on their heads. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this demonstrates the extraordinary congestion of business into which the Government have got themselves, and the confusion that exists over it when, at a time when the House would normally be going into recess, we cannot be told the possible date? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole handling of the Government's business at this stage is making the situation impossible for hon. and right hon. Members?
Is he not aware that if what his right hon. Friend the First Secretary said in winding up last night's debate is correct we shall be asked to consider in Committee, and later in this House, Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill


which make it a Bill of very different character from that which was given a Second Reading? Does he not agree that if both Houses are to carry out their proper legislative functions, they must be given the proper facilities and time in which to do it, especially when dealing with Measures of such immense importance?

Mr. Bowden: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should be concerned about sitting a day or two longer when only a few days ago his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) wanted to sit into September. I am sorry that I am still not able to tell the House the precise date of rising, but I said on Thursday of last week that we hoped to rise on the 9th or 10th in the hope that all business would have been obtained by that time
Following upon the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and in the national interest, it is now felt necessary to obtain a strengthened Prices and Incomes Bill and to place it on the Statute Book before the House rises. This, therefore, will entail the House sitting one, perhaps two, days longer than was envisaged last week.

Mr. Heath: Far from criticising the Leader of the House, I was asking that he should give an assurance that there will be proper time both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House to consider a Measure which was always important, but which the Amendments proposed by the First Secretary last night make a Bill of a different character, with far more fundamental changes, which ought to have proper and full consideration.

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Chief Whip, will know that one does not usually discuss allocation of time across the Floor of the House. We might do this through the usual channels.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason why the request of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) should not be acceptable? Is it not a shame to disappoint the right hon. Member? If he asks that the House should sit in September and even October we could meet again on 18th October and could still meet on 17th October. Why

should we not do so? Why disappoint the right hon. Member?

Mr. Bowden: Quite apart from any personal difficulty that I or any other hon. Member may be in, I think that if we endeavour to keep the House sitting up to the second week of August it will be generally acceptable.

Mr. Bessell: In view of the Government's publication of the White Paper on Transport, could be have a debate on this subject before the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, I should think that quite unlikely.

Sir R. Cary: Has the Leader of the House seen an all-party Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of hon. Members of all three parties which concerns limbless ex-Service men and the rate rebate scheme?
[That this House regrets that, by legislation passed in the last Parliament, war disability pensions were included as income in connection with the Rate Rebate Scheme; and calls upon the present Parliament to revise that decision, thereby restoring the traditional disregard which hitherto has always been given to disability pensions arising from war service.]
In the last Parliament the Department concerned, in conjunction with the Treasury, directed Parliament to break a trust with limbless ex-Service men which had been observed since 11th November, 1918. In this Parliament the matter could be dealt with by administrative Order if the House so directed. May we have an early chance of discussing the matter? Parliament has never been short of compassion for limbless ex-Service men.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue the merits at this moment.

Mr. Bowden: I fully understand and appreciate the problem raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I cannot promise a debate before the Recess, but I find that there is a Question down for 8th August which will be answered in the House and which may bring him some immediate answer.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in the foreseeable future we can have a debate on the


Brambell Report, or is that Report to be shelved indefinitely?

Mr. Bowden: No. I have promised a debate on the Brambell Report and it will be debated, but I do not think that it will be before the Recess.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the Leader of the House say when the Minister of Aviation will be making a statement on the Government's decisions on the Plowden Report and procurements problems of British European Airways and British Overseas Airways, both of which are extremely vital and urgent?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot give a firm answer, but I will write to the right hon. Member.

Mr. Molloy: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that we shall have an early debate on the transport White Paper, because the whole country will acknowledge that this is a remarkable piece of work by my right hon. Friend. [Laughter.] Oh yes, it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No argument on merits. This is a business question.

Mr. Molloy: I can understand the chagrin of hon. Members opposite, because they did nothing about this matter. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say that we can have an early debate on this very interesting White Paper?

Mr. Bowden: There is no doubt about the quality of the White Paper; this is an excellent programme. But I cannot promise a debate before the Recess. If my hon. Friend means early in the sense of being fairly soon after we resume, I shall do my very best.

Mr. Biffen: Does the Leader of the House recall that at this time last week I asked him when a White Paper would be published on the Prices and Incomes Bill? Is he aware that so far that has not been published? Will he tell the House when it will be possible?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Member asked me last week whether it would be published before the debate on economic affairs and, of course, that debate has taken place. I told him that I could not promise it firmly, but it will be published very quickly now.

Mr. Orme: Can my right hon. Friend say why there is this terrific urgency to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through? When are we to see the Government's proposed Amendments? It is not only the usual channels which are concerned. Many hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the proposals. Surely we are entitled to see them as soon as possible.

Mr. Bowden: The new Government proposals on the Prices and Incomes Bill arise out of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and strengthen the Bill in relation to the first six months and the second six months envisaged in that statement. The Amendments will be available later today.

Mr. Sandys: It is customary to have a debate on Commonwealth affairs before the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The Commonwealth has seldom faced greater difficulties than now. Are we to have such a debate?

Mr. Bowden: I should think it unlikely before the Recess.

Dame Irene Ward: Before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself to a debate on the White Paper on Transport, will he remember that he has already given a pledge that we shall have a debate on the Geddes Report on Shipbuilding? Will he remember that that has priority in regard to transport, because shipping and shipbuilding problems relate to transport? When can we have a debate?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Lady will be aware that it cannot be before the Recess, but I have promised a debate on the Geddes Report.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Leader of the House will be aware that today the Welsh Office has published the consultants' Report about the new town in mid-Wales. In view of the fact that the Government have suppressed this Report for seven months, may we now be told when there will be a debate on it?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot accept for a moment that the Report has been suppressed. There will be the normal opportunities in Welsh Grand Committee and in the House during the current Session.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Bill, in its


original form and in its now promised further extension, introduces radical changes in industrial relations, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no matter how long the House has to sit this Measure will not be rushed, so that we can consult our constituents, who have never given approval to this Measure, and that we can consult the trade union movement in the country, and that there will be every opportunity to oppose the Bill by those who wish to oppose it?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said that adequate time will be available.

Mr. Jopling: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 160, in my name and the names of more than 100 hon. and right hon. Members, asking that the agricultural industry should have greater opportunities for production in view of the balance of payments crisis?
[That this House, having noted the Prime Minister's statement containing the emergency measures to meet the present economic crisis, expresses disappointment at its, generally negative tone and, in particular, is concerned that he did not make use of the opportunity to provide new incentives to the agricultural industry to increase production, whereby the industry's magnificent record of increased productivity, which the Prime Minister has himself publicly acknowledged, could be harnessed to save food imports, and tints make an important contribution to the balance of payments situation; and urges him to open immediate talks with the industry's leaders towards this end.]
In view of the very conflicting statements made by the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday morning and the First Secretary of State last night, will the Leader of the House give time for a very urgent debate on this matter, so as to reduce the uncertainty in the agricultural industry?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time in addition to the two days we had when it would have been in order to discuss the matter. I cannot promise more time this side of the Recess.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the long list of delayed Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill seem likely, as far as we can tell, to be a radical departure from

the present Bill, would it not be more in keeping with our constitution that those Amendments should be embodied in a new Bill and that the House should be given an opportunity for a Second Reading debate upon them?

Mr. Bowden: These Amendments must be acceptable to the Bill and in line with its Long Title, or they would not be introduced in that way.

Mr. Godber: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), will the Leader of the House consult the Minister of Agriculture with a view to seeing that at the very least we have a statement to clear up the confusion between what the Minister of Agriculture and the First Secretary said about the National Plan, which made complete nonsense of the Minister's attitude?

Mr. Bowden: I will see whether there is any confusion and I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. McNamara: In view of the penal Clauses in the Prices and Incomes Bill, can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect to receive the Bill dealing with imprisonment for debt?
Can my right hon. Friend also give an undertaking that if there is any proposed settlement made with the illegal regime in Rhodesia he will seek a recall of Parliament?
May I also urge that at the earliest possible moment after the Recess we should have a debate on the excellent White Paper on Transport?

Mr. Bowden: I have already replied to the request for a debate on the White Paper on Transport.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has already said that there will be a debate in the House before any decision is taken arising out of the position in Rhodesia.
The question of the abolition of the imposition of imprisonment in cases of debt is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend and let my hon. Friend know the outcome.

Mr. David Steel: Would the Leader of the House consider a one-day debate after


the Recess on the Government's policy on Southern Africa, following the decision of the International Court at The Hague on South-West Africa?

Mr. Bowden: I will certainly consider that, but I would not hold out any hope for such a debate immediately after the Recess.

Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Leader of the House read on the tape the recently announced news that Mr. Hill, of the South-West Economic Council, has resigned and that the chairman has threatened to resign, owing to the fact that they have not been in any way consulted about the Government's economic policy? In the light of the collapse of regional economic policy in Dorset and the South-West, may we have a debate on the matter?

Mr. Bowden: I have not seen the tape. I cannot promise an immediate debate. Had the facts to which the hon. Gentleman refers been known, he could have raised the whole of this matter in the two-day debate on the economic situation.

Sir D. Glover: There is no doubt that the Government are drastically altering the purpose of the Prices and Incomes Bill. Will the Leader of the House consider recommitting the Bill to the House so that the House can have an opportunity of debating these alterations? [An HON. MEMBER: "That question has been asked already."] I know it has, and we received an unsatisfactory answer.
On Tuesday the House debated the Basutoland and Bechuanaland Independence Measures until 3 o'clock in the morning. The remaining stages of the relevant Bills are to be debated tonight. It is obvious that the House is seized of the very important problems involved in these two Measures. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide more time for the consideration of these Measures by the House?

Mr. Bowden: I have already twice answered the question about the Prices and Incomes Bill. The Select Committee of Procedure is currently considering the questions of hours of sitting. One of the proposals before the Committee is one I put myself—this is why I am aware

of it—that these matters could perhaps be taken at morning sittings.

Sir G. de Freitas: If we cannot have a debate before the Recess on Commonwealth affairs before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference is held, may we have one as soon as possible afterwards—in other words, very soon after we return?

Mr. Bowden: I should have thought that after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, as is usual, a statement will be made in the House. We can then discuss whether a debate should take place.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the Leader of the House agree that it might be for the convenience of the House that, when we discuss the double taxation agreement with Finland tomorrow, we take also the double taxation agreement with New Zealand, which I believe is also on the Order Paper? It is of some importance that these should be accepted before the House rises for the Recess.

Mr. Bowden: Yes. That is a very reasonable request. I will put it in order for tomorrow.

Sir T. Beamish: Will there be a statement on the strength of the B.A.O.R. and on the cuts the Government are contemplating in our overseas defence costs before the House rises for the Summer Recess, in view of the very great importance of these matters, and since this decision should not be taken unilaterally without the House having the opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise a statement before the House rises. The matter is under deep consideration at the moment, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: is the Leader of the House aware that he is proposing to bring the House back immediately following what will be a very enthusiastic Conservative Party conference? Will not this depress his back benchers even more than they are at the moment?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful to me that I am not bringing the House back in the middle of the Conservative Party conference.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House will doubtless be aware that the South-East Report on Hampshire by Professor Buchanan was published yesterday. As this Report contains a great many serious and practical proposals, affecting the whole of this area, is the House to be given an early opportunity to discuss it after the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: As the Report was published only yesterday, perhaps we had better have a longer look at it before we talk about a debate.

Mr. W. Baxter: When are we likely to have a debate on Scottish affairs, as such a debate is somewhat overdue?

Mr. Bowden: There are the usual occasions for debates on Scottish affairs on the Floor of the House in addition to those which occur upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee. We can discuss after the Recess whether we can bring one of the two days forward.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I gather that we are to have a shortish debate, it is in accordance with precedent that the opening speech on this occasion should be short. Moreover, as we have already had an economic debate, covering two days, and as the major item in the Bill is the Selective Employment Tax, which we have fully discussed on another Bill, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I myself make only a short introductory speech on Third Reading.
The Bill contains the usual number of minor provisions affecting old taxes, the tidying up of Income Tax, of Corporation Tax, of Capital Gains Tax, and, as usual, a provision in respect of antiavoidance—on this occasion that in relation to bond-washing on certain Stock Exchange transactions, involving additional powers of inspection by the Revenue.
There are also provisions in the Bill for new taxes, in particular the Betting and Gaming Duty, which I think we would all agree have been unusually well accepted for new taxes.
The major provisions in the Bill are those for strengthening the economy. First, there are in Part I a number of provisions facilitating international trade; and among those I would include in other parts of the Bill the double taxation agreements.
There are provisions for encouraging investment in the most direct way. The Bill paves the way for another Bill. The two Bills together provide for what I have just indicated. We must not forget that Corporation Tax, which is in the Bill and the rate for which is fixed for the first time, is one of the greatest incentives to investment that we have.
There has been some discussion about the rate of Corporation Tax. On one or two occasions I have been challenged as


to the comparable burden of taxation arising out of Corporation Tax and out of the previous system. There are a number of factors which will tend to affect the yield of Corporation Tax for the first year. There are various transitional reliefs and there is the effect on the Schedule F yield of the forestalling of dividends which took place.
There is also the fact that, even apart from this, we shall not be collecting more than 11 months of Schedule F tax in the first year, 1966–67. I repeat that the best estimate we can make is that the amount of tax which will, with a Corporation Tax rate of 40 per cent., reach the Exchequer in 1966–67 will be less than it would have been under the old system. It is, therefore, quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be said to have increased the burden of company taxation as a result of the change to the new system of Corporation Tax.
There have also been from time to time questions as to whether the Corporation Tax, which is an incentive to plough back profits and to increase investment capacity therefore out of the retained profits of a company, rather than by distributing dividends in the hope that they, in turn, will be reinvested, serves a useful purpose in this respect.
This has been confirmed in many ways and recent investigations, both here and in the United States, show that the individual investors on balance have spent on consumption the full amount of their dividend income and some fraction of their capital gains. As a group, they are net sellers of securities and not net buyers. The net acquisition of financial assets by the public—I am including securities of all kinds and not merely ordinary shares—is more than accounted for by increases of holdings by life assurance companies and pension funds.
In other words, security holders other than the institutions consistently sell some proportion of their total holdings. It follows, therefore, that the ultimate source of personal savings is the contributions of wage and salary earnings in the form of life assurance and pension funds, that individual shareholders do not provide the savings to finance

investment, and that there is no evidence to show that any significant part of additional dividend payments would, in fact, be saved and reinvested rather than spent.
Corporation Tax, therefore, is even more relevant to our needs today than when it was produced a year ago.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: But is not what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying the result of the taxation policy being pursued by the Government? Surely it is because taxation is so high that what he says is true. Should the Government, therefore, not seek to reverse this trend?

Mr. Diamond: I have already said that what I am saying is based on investigations here and in the United States into a pattern that is followed in both countries. One cannot be certain, of course, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the probable cause is that people are inclined to spend their income and to spend part of their capital gains, but are not inclined to spend their capital. This is borne out by the figures, If one increases dividends there is no likelihood, contrary to what has been suggested, of a reverse process whereby increased dividends would be saved and returned in the form of investments in new companies.
Corporation Tax, which provides tremendous encouragement to ploughing back, through the reduction in the tax borne by the company, is one of the best incentives that exists for the further investment that is so necessary for the development and growth of the economy.
The Bill also contains, in the provisions relating to the Selective Employment Tax, further encouragement to production and in particular to production for exports. In this connection, I do not think that I can do better than remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only yesterday:
We cannot go on with a situation where only one in every 20 in the expansion of our labour force goes into manufacturing employment.
He went on to refer to
… the acute shortage of labour in our essential industries, particularly our export firms.


and added:
… the biggest impediment to an immediate increase in exports is a shortage of labour, both skilled and unskilled.
… Government policies, all of which involve measures currently before the House—the Finance Bill, the Selective Employment provisions, the investment grants, and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—are all designed to secure a redeployment of resources in favour of manufacturing industry against services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1745–6.]
That is, indeed, the case and it is because there are so many provisions in this Bill which encourage investment, exports, international trade and mobility of labour—it includes a provision to relieve redundancy payments from taxation—that I feel sure the House will give the Bill a Third Reading today.

4.5 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: Seldom has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a speech with which I disagreed more. I shall follow him in one respect only, in that I shall be brief. He attempted to brush aside the Selective Employment Tax. In fact, never has a Finance Bill imposed such a heavy burden of taxation as this one. It extracts about £1,100 million a year in tax.
The Selective Employment Tax need never have come about if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got his forecasts remotely right. It has caused, and will continue to cause, a great deal of worry to the older folk, the older employed part timers and the disabled, who have to pay out money long before any will be returned to them.

Dame Irene Ward: And charities.

Mrs. Thatcher: And charities.
Although represented as a tax on services, it is, in fact, a tax on all goods and services, because the cost of distribution is as much a part of the cost of the finished product as is the cost of manufacture and the attempt to distinguish between the two elements in cost has no basis in logic or in fact.
The tax involves the collection of £1,130 million and then handing back £890 million, less administrative costs. As a means of collecting about £240 million of revenue with no contribution to greater

productivity this is an idiotic way of proceeding. Already, the protests we have had have been terrific, but they are only a fraction of what the protests will be when the tax bites in September. This is an unusual Bill, in that its taxation provisions do not bite until the Bill has passed all its stages in this House, so the average person has not yet felt the impact of its provisions and has, therefore, not yet made his particular protest.
The Bill is also a blow to savings, especially to small savings through friendly societies. These are savings which, by law, could not have exceeded £500 per person. I will quote an example. It concerns a firm near my constituency which employs many of my constituents and many represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
The firm drew up a monthly premium savings plan for the hourly-paid workers. On the whole, therefore, it affected small savers. In March, it negotiated with the Registrar of Friendly Societies to draw up rules for an appropriate friendly society. By April, the scheme was announced to the hourly employees. On 2nd May, the rules were adopted and on 9th May the society was registered.
Then the Bill was published and it was found that this type of friendly society, although designed for small savings by hourly-paid employees, was caught badly by the provisions of the Bill. On 7th June, representations were made to the Inland Revenue. On 23rd June, the firm received a reply stating that the matter had been reported to Ministers, who had decided that the society could not be exempted.
That is a specific example where a company which was proposing a scheme to help its employees to make small savings has now had to withdraw the scheme because of the Bill. It is an example of where the more the taxation the less savings there are and is positive proof that the Government prefer taxation to savings.
This is the eighteenth Budget and Finance Bill since 1951. In analysing the additions to the tax burden imposed by each one, one finds that, for imposing higher taxation burdens Labour Governments have it every time. Of the Budgets


between 1951 and 1966 that have imposed most taxation, that of Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, in 1951, led the field with a new tax burden of £388 million. The second in the higher taxation stakes goes to the present Chancellor, with this Bill, which, in a full year, imposes a burden of £265 million.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am following the hon. Lady's argument very closely, but I am not clear whether she is arguing that in the present Finance Bill there is too much deflation, or whether she would not have had as much.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am pointing out that Labour Governments are those which impose high taxation. If the hon. Gentleman wants a comparison with an emergency Budget—and he has been present when I have spoken on this subject before—he will remember that Mr. Butler's emergency Budget of 1952, introduced in circumstances identical to those of last year's, did not impose extra taxation.
The Budget with the third highest taxation was the right hon. Gentleman's of 1965 and the fourth was the right hon. Gentleman's of 1964. Only then do we get to a Conservative Budget, the fifth highest, and it is that which was introduced in April, 1964, and it is noteworthy that that Budget, imposing the highest taxation of Conservative Budgets, was introduced in an election year. This Budget holds the second prize for introducing the highest taxation burden since 1951. Out of the eighteen, all of the nine which reduced taxation were introduced by Conservative Governments.
We face tremendous new taxes and we must consider this Finance Bill in the context of other statements. We know the crowd on the Treasury Bench fairly well by this time and that when they get their hands on extra money they tend to spend it. If the Chancellor is to spend the extra taxes which he is taking in, and not to use them to reduce the National Debt, the whole purpose of the extra taxation will be defeated. I should, therefore, like an assurance that the extra taxes which he is taking in this year will be used to reduce the National Debt and not to subsidise nationalised industries which cannot pay their way.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman gave the hon. Lady the assurances for which she is asking, he would be out of order.

Mrs. Thatcher: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he can give them to me another time.
This Finance Bill embodies a disastrous Budget. It is a monument to financial misjudgment and administrative lunacy, and it is, therefore, a fitting monument to this incompetent Government.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Opposition to the Third Reading of the Finance Bill in my experience is rather rare. Objections to the Budget are usually raised at earlier stages. When we have reached the stage of the Third Reading, everybody knows that the money has to be provided and that the Bill cannot be amended at this stage and opposition to it is, therefore, purely mischievous and irresponsible even if it is carried with sincerity into the Division Lobby.
However, I appreciate that what the Opposition wish to do is not to defeat the Finance Bill, because that would be too absurd even for them, but to offer a challenge to the whole of the Government's management of the economy. It is a challenge which they have made repeatedly over past weeks. No one would deny that they have a perfect right to do so and that it is certainly within their rights and within Parliamentary tradition to take this further opportunity to offer the challenge. What I should like from them is a redefinition of what their challenge is.
In the course of the debate in the last two days, they have repeatedly told us not that the Government's immediate policy is wrong, not that they object to making hire purchase more difficult, not that they object to a wage freeze and not that they object to anything the Government are doing. They tell us that in their opinion what the Government are doing, although not wrong in itself, is too little and too late. I should like to know whether I have got the message correctly.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No relation to it.

Mr. Silverman: It bears no relation to it because it comes too late, because the


Chancellor of the Exchequer gambled and should have taken what risks he was taking earlier and that what he is now doing is not only too little but too late? Have I got it right this time?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. I thought that I made it clear in my opening sentences and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made it clear last night. When the Chancellor made his Budget statement, he said that the Selective Employment Tax was an alternative to increases in Purchase Tax and petrol tax and so on. We now have increased Purchase Tax and petrol tax. The point is that we need never have had the Selective Employment Tax if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got his forecasts right.

Mr. Silverman: Do I take it that it is no longer the Opposition's argument that my right hon. Friend's measures are too little or too late?

Mr. Speaker: The only measures which we can discuss at the moment are those contained in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I do not propose to discuss measures other than the Finance Bill. If I am wrong in thinking that the Opposition wish to challenge the Finance Bill at this stage because they wish to challenge the Government's whole economic policy, then I have nothing further to say. They can go on opposing these measures from now until doomsday and it will not make any difference to anybody and it will not give anybody any satisfaction of any kind.
The only usefulness of the debate is whether it gives a further opportunity to consider whether the general economic policy now being pursued by the Government is right or wrong in the opinion of the Opposition and in the opinion of supporters of the Government. If such a discussion is out of order, I confess that I am not interested in this discussion at all and certainly would not wish to waste the time of the House by spending another half minute on it.
I thought that what the Opposition were doing was to say that we were in a very serious economic position, that the Government were responsible for it, that the measures which the Government have taken to deal with it were not enough,

and that such measures as the Government have taken of which the Opposition approve were taken too late. I should like to offer my own contribution to the discussion on the basis that that discussion would be in order. If it is not, I am not interested.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is out of order if on the Third Reading of the Bill he pursues matters except those which are in the Bill. This is the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and the only Measure which can now be discussed is the Finance Bill and what is in it.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: if I may presume to follow at any rate in the spirit of what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), one cannot help feeling a little sorry for the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who in recent weeks have been defending the Finance Bill while in the forefront of their minds has been the knowledge of the present situation which has been available to them as members of the Government. At times they must have felt like the Pharisees described by St. Matthew, dealing with mint and anise and cummin and omitting weightier matters. I have no doubt that as they prepared for today's debate they had in mind the words of Wystan Auden—
And look behind you without a sound
The woods have come up and are standing round
In deadly crescent.
The House will be aware that the poet's next verse goes on:
Outside the window is the black remover's van.
It is the intention of the Liberal Party to vote against the Bill this evening and it is our hope that it will never come into practical effect, particularly Clause 44 which is the Finance Bill portion of the Selective Employment Tax.
When I first came into the House, one of my early challenges from outside was an inquiry whether I was in favour of vivisection, and I hedged on that matter and kept the letter in my file, where it still is. But I am certainly against the kind of vivisection which Clause 44 will enforce. It has been admitted by the Government that the Selective Employment Tax is a vivisection measure. It is


a try out, and it is only to be refined—that is the Government's hope—as time goes by. But in the time that goes by before we have the refinements many living businesses, indeed many people's means of livelihood, will be destroyed. That is why we describe it as a piece of fiscal vivisection.
One example from a very large postbag which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have received in recent weeks is that of a firm of shipbrokers in Lerwick, Shetland, which wrote to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party on 20th July with regard to the Measure now before the House:
The object of the Bill would apparently be to cut out part-time workers, but in this case we are forced by the union to employ casual dockers. An example of the difficulties that will arise: recently my firm employed 32 dockers for a vessel discharging on Monday only. This would mean that apart from having to pay each man's National Insurance stamp for the week, which we do at present, we would also have to pay £40 in tax for this one day's work.
That is what I mean in referring to this experimental tax as a piece of vivisection.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred just now to the tax biting in September. I take leave to doubt how far it will bite in September, especially amongst traders who neither have the cash with which to buy the new stamps nor can get the necessary facilities from their bank with which to buy them. I hope that we shall be told during the debate just how the Government intend to make the tax bite in September, because it was my experience, going on audit to small businesses, that very often one of the first things I had to instruct my staff to do was to stamp the client's insurance cards—often for a long period in arrears.
Those who operate the high-value stamping procedure, are not, or were not when I last inquired, required to pay until the end of the quarter. It is well known that if a citizen presents himself at the post office and finds that he needs stamps which have gone out of circulation, because he is so much in arrear, he is told to produce the money, and the printed form of receipt is readily available to acknowledge that the cash handed over in lieu of stamps satisfies the obligation. I know that we shall be told—

Mr. Barnett: I do not want to impugn any of the hon. Gentleman's clients, but would he not agree—I am sure that he would not want to exaggerate the case, and I am sure that he is right in saying that this happens—that this happens only in the case of very small businesses, and that it hardly applies to medium and larger size companies?

Mr. Wainwright: Not at all. The high-value stamping to which I referred is specially designed, and is an admirable measure, to assist the larger businesses. The operation of the high-value stamping procedure is so complicated that only a large business with a considerable wage-office staff could hope to operate it. As I think I made clear, I was speaking not entirely with regard to arrears of stamping that have happened in the past, but with regard to the very much greater arrears of stamping which I apprehend will occur in the future, now that the stamp in some cases will cost as much as 56s. 1d.
The recent revelations of the economic situation which have been debated in the House this week have destroyed a great many of the arguments to which the House listened during earlier discussion of this Measure. I refer particularly to the effect which the tax set out in Clause 44 will have upon the employment of the elderly, the part-time and the disabled. When this matter was discussed on Second Reading, we received from the Chief Secretary the following attempt at reassurance with regard to the elderly, the part-time and the disabled:
So long as the policy of full employment is maintained—and this the Government are determined to do—it does not seem that there can be an overall falling-off in the need for workers in these groups."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 485.]
That assurance is now largely worthless, and because this Measure, and especially Clause 44, will inflict a very great deal of personal hardship and encourage a great deal of commercial inefficiency, the Liberal Members will vote against it tonight.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: When we look at a Bill on Third Reading, we are best advised to look at it in its totality and see whether we are justified in accepting it or rejecting it at this stage. We have had


exhaustive debate on the details, and I shall make a brief speech merely upon whether we are justified in accepting the Bill in totality. When we consider this, it is necessary to have in mind the very grave economic situation of the country with which the Bill is intended to deal.
It is the Tories' view that a Tory Government are equivalent to an extra couple of a thousand million pounds in the reserves and that hence when they are in office one does not need to worry about financial difficulties of this kind. I hope that no one will accuse me of excessive partisanship when I say that this view is not universally shared, even by those who are normally political supporters of the Conservative Party.
We must take the general situation into account in deciding whether the sacrifices, burdens and difficulties that we all admit are imposed by the Bill are justified. The first major criticism made against the Bill, very often from hon. Members on this side of the House, is that the measures in the Bill are not those that the Government wants to take; they are the measures that international bankers insist that they take. If that were true, and this House were of that opinion, it would feel obliged to reject the Bill.
It is true in a superficial sense that the Government do not want to take measures that will be painful and cause suffering and difficulty to the citizens of the country. But it is equally true that they want these measures for the same reason that the international bankers want them, namely, that they want this country to pay its way in the world and be in a position to maintain the stability and strength of our currency and have a strong £, which is one of the central determinations of the present Government.
In assessing the complaint against the Bill that it is dictated by international bankers, it should be remembered that the only international bankers who matter in the modern world are the financial wings of foreign Governments. These are not irresponsible and rapacious tycoons of the 19th century seeking with their cheque books to enslave this proud and independent nation. They are the financial wings of friendly Governments seeking to co-operate with the British Government in the common interest of us all to provide that collective financial

and economic security on which the prosperity of the Western world depends.
In so far as the Bill plays a vital part in the Government's policy of defending the £and ensuring that this country pays its way in the world, I support it, and even if there are sacrifices and burdens and some temporary anomalies I absolutely respect the courage of the Government in pursuing this course of insisting that the country pays its way in the world and preserves the value of its currency.
It is said that we need not worry about preserving the value of the currency, that sacrifices such as those exacted by the Finance Bill are unnecessary, and that all that is needed instead of a Measure of this kind is a once-for-all devaluation. My first comment is that, if we get into the habit of having once-for-all devaluations every 10 years or so, we are hardly likely to add to the wealth, prosperity and reputation of our land. We have heard this story of once-for-all devaluations before, and we are not impressed by the suggestion that it should be undertaken now.
I often think that those very sincere and knowledgeable people who put forward engaging arguments for devaluation of the £rather than approving the kind of financial measures we are now discussing mistake the assembly in which they are speaking. The House of Commons is a debating assembly. It is not a debating society. Our resolutions have consequences. Those of a debating society have not. If this debating assembly comes to the conclusion that we should support concepts like devaluation of the £, then, in my respectful submission, it will be a very sorry and lamentable conclusion with dire consequences for the people of this country and their reputation.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not this the first time in this century when we have gone as long as 10 years without a devaluation?

Mr. Lever: My hon. and learned Friend's recollection of modern financial history is, to say the least, a little inadequate. It is not true that this will be the first time we have gone for 10 years without devaluation.
In any event, we are discussing a Finance Bill to protect against devaluation, at a time when the world has perfected international monetary arrangements on a scale and of a value never


seen before in our history. It is idle for my hon. and learned Friend to seek to justify rash acts which would demolish the whole arrangements developed to maintain international financial stability by reference to what has occurred in a different age and in different circumstances.
My hon. and learned Friend must bear in mind that people hold sterling today on the basis of different undertakings—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. Lever: I take it to be a justification for the Bill. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend thinks otherwise. I regard the sacrifices under the Bill which we are asked to support as being part of the necessities rightly imposed upon us in honouring our obligations internationally in relation to our currency. This was the only point which I wished to make about the Bill, and I am sorry that it does not seem to have registered.
At a time when many people seem to think that the honouring of our obligations in relation to the £at home and abroad to friendly Governments and to trusting individuals is some kind of meglomaniac quirk, I want to go on record as entirely endorsing the Government's policy of supporting the £at its present parity and the international arrangements and obligations which go with it. I am willing readily to support them in a Budget designed to play a notable part in putting this country in a position to pay its way in the world and honour its obligations.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I shall make one point in following the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) on the question of devaluation, and I think that it will not be too unwelcome to the Chancellor. I want the Chancellor to make clear to the House and the country that devaluation is of itself no easy way out of our troubles. It would make our imports dearer and our exports earn less. [Interruption.] But this is following the argument used before with reference to the Finance Bill.
The Bill is already out of date. The most important factor in it is the Selec-

tive Employment Tax, and there will be lots of Amendments moved to Bills of which we have no knowledge yet. This Bill is completely out of date, as a result of statements made by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in the circumstances which have arisen since the Bill was first introduced some months ago.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): indicated dissent.

Sir C. Osborne: We are talking about a dead horse. It is no good the Financial Secretary shaking his head. The real factors are not in this Bill. Other things have been superimposed, and the Chancellor knows full well that the position is totally different from that when he introduced the Bill so long ago.
I shall bring myself entirely within order now by directing attention to Clauses 17 and 18. I shall speak as a Surtax payer for Surtax payers. If the Chancellor cannot deal with the point I make this year, I hope that he will bear it in mind for another year. Clause 17 imposes a standard rate of Income Tax of 8s. 3d. in the £, and Clause 18 imposes Surtax to the limit of 10s., making a total of 18s. 3d. in the £. Thus, when the Bill was first introduced, the man on the top level with, say, over £15,000 a year, or thereabouts, was left with 1s. 9d. in the £.
Subsequently, the Chancellor has imposed a further 10 per cent., which means that the top rate Surtax payer will have 9d. in the £out of his last earnings. I know all the argument about average earnings, but when a man is asked to take greater responsibility or to take greater risks it is his marginal risk and effort which is taxed at this ridiculous rate.
I put it to the Chancellor—I am sure he will listen to this—that 19s. 3d. in the £is an absurd rate of direct taxation, especially when the right hon. Gentleman is himself pleading with industry for men to take greater risks and to make their businesses more efficient in order that the nation may survive. It is in these circumstances that he says to them, "Out of every 20s. you earn extra, you will get 9d.". This is financial madness. No one can be expected to work for 9d. in the £.
The history of the matter is that, over the years since Lloyd George's famous Budget of 1909, we have inherited the


idea that the Finance Bill should be used as a measure for social justice, for the redistribution of the national wealth and income. As matters stood in David Lloyd George's time, there was a lot to be said for it. Now, however, we have swung to the other extreme. We all want social justice, but we also want economic efficiency. If the demand for social justice through a tax Bill like this weakens our economic efficiency, the whole is worse off.
A few days ago, the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) said that he was not interested in a fairer distribution of the same sized national cake; he wanted a bigger cake. But this is not the way to make a bigger cake. The whole idea of taxation as embodied in the Bill and these two Clauses in particular is wrong. We ought to tax people's spending more and not tax their earnings so much. If we want men to work and take responsibility and risk, we must reward them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am following what the hon. Gentleman says with interest, but he must not discuss the general economic situation on Third Reading. He must discuss what is in the Bill.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to keep in order.
I am referring to Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. Clause 17 imposes Income Tax at a standard rate of 8s. 3d. in the £and Clause 18 imposes Surtax at 10s., making 18s. 3d. in all. But since then the Chancellor has imposed another 10 per cent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, the 10 per cent. is not in the Bill and it is, therefore, out of order.

Sir C. Osborne: Then I shall stick to the 18s. 3d. The 18s. 3d. is a ridiculous rate to impose on top Surtax payers. [Laughter.] That is true. It is no good giggling. A responsible Member on the Government benches ought not to giggle in such a silly way.
The men who are already running businesses and taking risks with their health and wealth are being asked to work harder. It is responsibility which pulls men down quicker than manual labour. They are being asked to take on greater

responsibilities and worries, and under the Bill they are being offered Is. 9d. in the £for every earned. It is absurd. I am asking the Chancellor to give a thought to this for another time. I remind him that at the moment our economy is a mixed one. About 80 per cent. is private and about 20 per cent. nationalised industry. If the economy is to work there has to be a mainspring, and the mainspring of the capitalist system is the profit motive.
If one taxes a man's earnings at the rate of 18s. 3d. in the £, one weakens the profit motive. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often argued that the profit motive is bad, selfish and almost immoral, and should be abolished. The challenge that I put to the Chancellor is to ask him what he will put in the place of the profit motive. Will he tax it out of existence, or tax it so much that it will not operate properly and efficiently? What will he replace it with? In the Communist world force would be used. What will he do in the Socialist world?
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind for another occasion and to look at Clauses 17 and 18 to see whether really drastic reductions could not be made in Income Tax and Surtax on earned income. This is one of the greatest weaknesses in the handling of our economic affairs and until it is put right the efficiency asked for by the Chancellor will not be attained.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The really important question on this Finance Bill is: does it have in it the right amount of deflation?

Mrs. Thatcher: No.

Mr. Barnett: The really important question about it, from my point of view, is whether it has the right amount of deflation, and that is what I propose to discuss, even if the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) does not wish to do so.
I want to see if it has the right amount of deflation in the context of the present circumstances. In asking that question one must also obviously ask: is it the right amount to deal with three different problems—the short-term economic position, the fundamental problems facing us, and the pressures on sterling?
It will be clear that there is nothing in the Bill which gets to the root of the faults of our economic situation. Neither if one takes both the economic package, which we cannot discuss today, and this Bill, can one believe that the measures are purely and simply for short-term economic reasons.
It is clear that the Bill and the general deflationary measures in it, but more particularly the other measures that we have had, have been taken because of the pressures on sterling, and it is in that context that one must ask whether the amount of deflation is right. In asking whether the Bill is right, it is necessary to ask whether one feels that it will be successful in its short-term aim of getting us over the interim period, leaving us free to deal with the fundamental problems facing us. In considering this one has to look at the general situation we are now in and see the effect so far of the measures taken and the other measures that we have debated.
It seems to be pretty clear from the effects so far seen that the measures, unfortunately, will be effective only if and when we have the 500,000 unemployed. As things are, people who are concerned with pressures on sterling—and I make no criticism here of those who deal in sterling for many quite legitimate reasons—are concerned with our general position. They will only be satisfied as and when the measures taken are effective and are seen to be effective in dealing with our basic balance of payments problem.
In looking at this one has also to consider whether it would have been better to have taken other steps. It was suggested in the House yesterday and the day before that we should have devalued the £. This, I believe, would be utterly wrong. The trouble is that many people see this as a cure-all. It is nothing of the kind. It no more deals with the short-term situation than do the deflationary measures in the Bill and the package. Only too often I have seen companies, given financial assistance, whether by way of increased overdrafts or debentures, suddenly finding themselves with an enormous amount of increased liquidity and going beserk, as it were, frittering away the money which is literally not theirs. Unfortunately, this could happen with devaluation, if it were seen as a long-term

answer to our economic problems. There are many other arguments which one cannot deploy here, on Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the House is listening with interest to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but he is going too far. He is debating the economic situation, which is not in order on the Bill.

Mr. Barnett: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was, I hope, relating it to the Bill and I was about to ask whether the measures in the Bill will get us over this period of uncertainty and whether the amount of deflation contained in the Bill and the package will give us this breathing space. I am not at all convinced that they will. For all its difficulties, I would have much preferred the certainty of import quotas, which, of course, I cannot discuss today, or even the measures suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) yesterday by way of financial control on imports.
This was a very interesting suggestion which, I hope, will be followed up, although I would prefer the other alternative I have referred to. The real point is that in the longer term we have a very much more difficult problem. Here I do not believe that the Bill gets to the root of this long-term problem. This does not mean that we should go on as we have been doing, exaggerating the case as has happened only too often, in the instance of the Selective Employment Tax and of our general economic position. The difficulties of our economic situation have been grossly exaggerated. We should repeat and repeat that we are not bankrupt and nowhere near it. The longer we go on creating this psychological state of affairs into which we are talking ourselves, then all the more will people who are in a position to exert pressure on the continue to do so. I therefore hope that we can stop talking as though we are in a state of bankruptcy.
The position is really nothing like as desperate as has been alleged in many quarters. If one takes the 14 years since 1952 the total net deficit on the balance of payments on current and capital account totalled about £1,796 million, or an average of £128 million a year. During the past year we spent in foreign exchange abroad £454 million, of which


£293 million was in the foreign exchange element of military expenditure. It will be clear that the Bill, or any of the other measures we have had, is not dealing with the fundamental problems. One has only to consider the sort of figures to which I have referred to see that it is not anything like so serious a problem. The main deflationary new tax in the Bill is the Selective Employment Tax. But we are literally creating the problem for ourselves.
The main item in the Bill is, of course, the S.E.T. Despite the many words of very great exaggeration we have had from the other side and despite the fact that I would like to see some changes in the field of part timers, charities and the disabled, I believe that this is a broadly based good new tax measure and that it will be a better one as and when we are able to amend it, as I hope, in the very near future.
An aspect I would like briefly to discuss is its administration. Unfortunately, for the reasons we know, the tax has been sub-contracted to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the Ministry of Labour. I hope that it will not be felt that because it has been so sub-contracted, we should leave it with them for a fairly long time. I hope that the Revenue will take it back again very quickly, indeed, because there already exists a not too difficult procedure which could be adopted. We already have a tax deduction card which would need only one or two more columns added to enable a tax of this kind to be administered very much more simply than in the way proposed.
I believe that we should do this very quickly and I hope that when we do we shall take the opportunity to do away with the millions of pieces of paper, in the form of stamps, which are stuck on National Insurance cards every week. It would be a very simple task in the administration of this new tax to have additional columns entered on the P.A.Y.E. deduction card so that we can get away from the necessity of sticking on millions of stamps every week. In a modern society, it is quite ridiculous.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman hopes that this may be amended very soon. I respect that point of view, but does it therefore leave him

to regret that we have not taken fairly recent opportunities of achieving that?

Mr. Barnett: I agree with the broadly based new measures and it is not so long now till next April. I hope that it will then be possible to have the appropriate amendments. For example, I am not wedded to the idea of premiums to manufacturers, as I said on another occasion.
On the administrative aspect, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look into this because it would seem to me that it need not take long to arrive at a decision and say, "This is what we will do. We will get away once and for all from the old idea of sticking millions of pieces of paper on cards each week. We are now to have a stamp which includes the Selective Employment Tax so that when we do away with the proposed method we can do away with the stamp altogether and have on the P.A.Y.E. card the figures, one for the employee showing the amount to be deducted under National Insurance."
This would not be difficult because already, on wage sheets, under many systems for deducting P.A.Y.E., which is referred to in the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely desirable to get rid of stamp licking, but the hon. Gentleman must refer to the tax in the Bill.

Mr. Barnett: I was, I hope, relating it to the Selective Employment Tax in Clause 44. I hope that the Government will consider this very seriously.
Finally, I hope that this will be the last major Finance Bill we shall be discussing. I hope that we can get away from this idea of a once-a-year major Finance Bill with its aura of crisis, and fear and expectation. I hope we can get away from this creation of an unnatural atmosphere. I feel that the petty jokes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Mr. Iain Macleod), when he speaks of another mini-Budget or the five or six Budgets of my right hon. Friend, are unworthy of him.
I believe that we can do away with a major Budget once a year and have regular financial statements. Any businessman, company, or managing director who tried to run his business on the basis of one major decision a year would be rightly criticised.
I hope, therefore, that this will be the last major Finance Bill of its kind to be discussed in this House.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am hardly surprised that the speakers from the opposite benches have not been very favourably disposed to this Bill in detail. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) started by saying that he wanted to refer to the totality of the Bill. With his great knowledge of the details, I am not surprised that he restrained himself and kept to the totality, because it is when one enters on the details that the snags arise. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) asked whether the Bill would bring about the right amount of deflation. He need not have troubled to ask, because the Bill has been overtaken by another one. But the hon. Gentleman did not seem satisfied with that. He wanted more Finance Bills in a year. All I can say is that this House will soon be in continuous session on finance business under a Labour Government.
Frankly, I have found the Bill very depressing and extremely confusing. It is the second most confusing Finance Bill I have had to study; the most confusing was last year's. But I will stick to the detail of this Finance Bill and what it actually contains. There are still a number of aspects I would like cleared up by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Three of the points I wish to put to him are contained within the provisions dealing with the Selective Employment Tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer will know that local authorities have to pay the Selective Employment Tax and then are to be reimbursed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has over-all responsibility for the grants to local authorities. I would like him to state very clearly at this stage what will be the method of reimbursing through the grants system the impact of the Selective Employment Tax on local authorities.
The second point I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the mechanism for refunding the effects of the tax to the agricultural industry. I am aware that individual employees in agri-

culture are to get the tax refunded, but there is something over and above the refunding of the individual amounts of tax. There is the additional amount of loans which will have to be raised in the agricultural industry which will have to be serviced. Are we to be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that this is no cause for a further Price Review, or of an interim Price Review, due to the increase in costs? I ask that because the Prime Minister has said that costs have to be contained. I would submit that a very severe increase in costs will be placed upon agriculture through the whole administrative and loan charges that will result from the effect of the Selective Employment Tax.
I come now to the third point, on which I have corresponded with Ministers, regarding the Selective Employment Tax. This concerns the treatment of "share fishermen". It has always been realised that the share fisherman comes into a very special category with regard to the Selective Employment Tax. For most purposes these fishermen are treated as being self-employed, and I would never have raised this matter at this late stage had this matter not still remained obscure after correspondence with Ministers. Around the coasts of Britain almost all inshore fishing is carried on by share fishermen. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will know the methods under which they are reimbursed. For all practical purposes, they are self-employed. They very often go out on one day in the week and then there may be three, four or more days when they cannot go to sea because of weather conditions. Are these "share fishermen" to pay this Selective Employment Tax at all? That has not yet been made clear to me, and it is a matter of great importance, not only in England and Wales but in Scotland as well; because this particular method of sharing out money from the catch is the normal way in which these men are remunerated, and for all practical purposes they are taken to be self-employed.
I wish to comment on what the Chief Secretary said. In recommending the Third Reading of the Bill, he stated that the betting and gaming legislation had been well received. I cannot confirm that statement. I cannot think that the sensible way of taxing betting is by taxing


stakes. The method which we recommend was different. It was rejected. The industry will calculate this tax in an entirely different manner. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton drew attention to the administrative costs. This is a further administrative cost. Surely it is far better to collect a tax in the same way that it is to be administered throughout an industry.
I have spoken on many occasions recently about taxation mechanisms, grant mechanisms and the like, and I have said on every occasion that there will be added to this country's costs an enormous sum in administrative costs which will bring no recompense in productivity. This is one of the major reasons why productivity is not rising under the Government.
The gaming legislation in the Bill is based on a tax on rateable values. I criticised this tax an rateable values and suggested a method whereby the taxation of the gaming area of an establishment would be based on the area in which the gaming took place. That proposal was rejected. The gaming legislation proposed in the Bill is an encouragement to maximising the amount of gaming which takes place in any establishment. Only a few days ago I visited a country club in which there was a very small gaming room indeed. The taxation proposed in the Bill will be an encouragement to the proprietor of that club to use every room for gaming purposes. I should have thought that that was antisocial legislation such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not contemplate.
I regard the Bill as a most depressing Bill which increases taxation to an alarming extent. I have had instances only in the last few days of young and old people leaving this country—young people whom we can ill afford to lose and elderly people who would be paying full taxation if they remained here—they are leaving because of the tremendous weight particularly of direct taxation. I shall always be opposed to the Bill because of the disincentives in it and the great confusion caused by the lack of clarity of the measures proposed.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) said

that he was sorry for the members of the Treasury Bench. I am sorry for them, but for different reasons from those which the hon. Gentleman gave. I have been sorry for them during the course of the Bill because of the repetitious nature of some of the arguments to which they have had to listen and the tedious comments which have been frequently made. I am glad to say that today is proving to be something of an exception. Therefore, I hope that their tedium is somewhat diminished.
I did not come into Parliament as a member of the Opposition. Therefore, I have not been sufficiently aware of the frustrations which certain hon. Members opposite feel. Nevertheless, I must accept that their comments have been extremely testing to members of the Treasury Bench. It is a tribute to them that they have reacted so well and favourably during the long days of criticism from both sides.
The Bill—I have criticised and commented on it freely—contains the seeds, if not at this stage the final fruit, of very great reforms. I always think of myself as being interested, not so much in the details which the Finance Bill embodies, but in the opportunities it offers to control the economy in the way in which we wish to see it proceed. This Bill, added to the great measures in the last Finance Bill, has provided further powerful means of discriminating in many cases and of being able to follow certain desirable objectives in the years to come.
Up to the advent of the Labour Government, there were very few measures enabling us to control the economy in the way which we will now be able to do. We had the regulator, with its useful but limited control over consumer demand. By the introduction of the Capital Gains Tax last year and its improvement this year, we have been able to tax all increases in wealth as and when they arise. By the Corporation Tax we have been able to discriminate between the taxation of companies and of individuals. Further progress has been made in Clause 44 of the Bill dealing with the Selective Employment Tax whereby we are able to tax companies on the basis of the individuals employed by them. Naturally, we expect to see refinements of this tax in the years ahead.
Another method of discrimination has been the promotion of investment grants


and the removal of investment allowances in Clause 35. This is a means of influencing the kind of investment which is thought to be desirable. Just in case there are some who feel that this change is not desirable—there have been comments in the last two days on this—I draw attention to the issue of Metalworking Production, which came out yesterday, showing that 63 per cent. of the machine tools of this country are over 10 years old. Those who feel that the investment allowances have been doing their job must question their view in the light of this recent report.
The measures in this Bill and in the Finance Bill of last year give some degree of control over certain aspects of the economy. We can now control in a limited way the flow of money in and out of industry. There is also some influence over investment by investment grants and some means of regulating the supply of money into the economy. These are measures which were notably lacking in the arsenal of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. The combination and use of these various measures—the regulator, Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax, the Selective Employment Tax and the investment grants—will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his successors a great deal of control and influence over the economy which they will come to value greatly in the years ahead.
But the great weapon lacking in these measures is proper control over consumer demand. Although the regulator may be used to control the level of hire purchase from time to time, I hope that some of the Government's advisers will concentrate on a method of controlling the level of consumer demand much more accurately and immediately than we are now able to do. What we need here is a fine screw for continuous control of the level of consumer demand, in the same way as we control other aspects.
Under Clause 16, we have the use of the regulator, but it cannot be used in a wide enough range of industries, and there are difficulties in its being able to be used frequently enough. We require a measure which can be introduced more frequently over a much wider range of industries. Means to do this must be found to remove purchasing power as

required and to take account of various changes in the economy. I hope that the Chancellor will make use of some of the brain-power in the Treasury to suggest such methods for the future.

Mr. Richard Hornby: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the regulator is a very flexible weapon, which can be used at varying rates? The problems are the administrative complications which follow from repricing and so on. Legislatively, the weapon is very flexible, which is what other hon. Gentlemen opposite have been asking for. They are asking for more flexibility and not less, which is just what the regulator gives.

Mr. Sheldon: The difficulty is that the range of industries covered by the regulator is limited. We have the industries which have always been subject to increases in Purchase Tax whenever demand has been too high, and they have been the greatest victims of the stop-go cycle. They have been quite unfairly victims of this because of the nature of the goods which they manufacture and the ease with which certain increases in Purchase Tax can be made. I am asking for a much wider measure which can be introduced more frequently than the regulator has been introduced since it was first created.
Whenever the introduction of new taxes has been undertaken, the Chancellor has been in great difficulty. At all times, an innovator is discomforted by the comments of those people who are hurt or who are asked to change their methods. Any Chancellor who undertakes great reforms must be even more severely the subject of such criticisms.
I feel that the dilemma of the Chancellor throughout the Finance Bills he has introduced has been this. Either he has been able to give advance notification of the introduction of a new tax in order to anticipate difficulties which are inevitably encountered and is thereby accused of uncertainty by the business community and others, or, alternatively, he gives no notification at all and he is accused of the inevitable errors which come to light when the Bill is announced.
Any Chancellor finds that dilemma hard to resolve. I would be in favour of a longer period of gestation of new taxes. That is not to say that we should


postpone the introduction of new taxes for future years, but that the thinking about them should start immediately the last Finance Bill is over, so that one can have six months of rather more thorough thinking about new taxes.
I am not very much in favour of taxes being introduced to meet the circumstances of a particular time. In taxation, one needs to look further ahead than that. One needs to look at their impact over the next five or ten years rather than over the next particular year because of the economic circumstances in which the country happens to find itself. This long period of gestation, using the advice and ability within the Treasury, can be of great value in improving the taxation system of our country and effecting a more refined control over the working of the economy.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am sure that all of us who sat through the last two Finance Bills will agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that, if we could examine new taxes before they were introduced into the House, we might save everyone a great deal of trouble. However, I trust that he will forgive me if I do not pursue him into that particular realm.
I think that it behoves hon. Gentlemen who, like myself, have been in the House for only a short time to take the advice and benefit from the experience of those who have been here longer. During Committee stage, when I had the privilege of initiating a debate which we had on the regulator powers, I listened to the Chancellor's reply with great interest, naturally. He offered the following advice:
I am neither an economist nor a statistician; I do not have a trained mind. I merely dance to an old Hungarian tune. But I have been in politics for 21 years, and have survived. The lesson that I would offer to the hon. Member, if I may in all humility, is always to pay a proper respect to arithmetic and a proper disrespect for forecasts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1854.]
Naturally, I took that advice to heart, though I cannot help feeling that, as we come to the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the advice might have been better taken either in regard to the forecast by the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary, in view of his statement last night, or in regard to the statement of the right

hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a debate which took place a few days after that, to which he referred in his opening speech today. That was the debate on the rate of the Corporation Tax. On 21st June, during the Committee stage, the Chief Secretary was further questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) about the Corporation Tax rate. My right hon. Friend pointed out that, in his endeavour to explain why the rate was 40 per cent. and not 35 per cent., the Chief Secretary had fallen into very grave error. My right hon. Friend went on:
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about two quite different things. He said that because £50 million, the eleven-twelfths argument, is one-twentieth or 5 per cent. of £1,000, that alone explains the difference between the old figure and the new. That is quite untrue. It is a different 5 per cent., as anyone can see. The increase from 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. is an increase of one-seventh, or 14 per cent. What the Chief Secretary has done is to commit an error into which a primary schoolboy would not have fallen. He has taken the 5 per cent. of the £1,000 and equated that with a 14 per cent. increase from 35 to 40 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 314.]
That was a very severe indictment, and on that occasion we had no real answer from the Chief Secretary. Today he comes in and, admittedly in an admirably brief speech, again fails completely to explain why the Corporation Tax rate is at 40 per cent. It is surely right and proper that before we approve or disapprove the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the House, the country and the business community are entitled to an explanation which is not based on an arithmetical fallacy as to why the rate increased from the anticipated 30 per cent. to a rate of 40 per cent.
I want now to deal with the old argument that the Corporation Tax will encourage investment. The Chief Secretary resorted to an argument, which has not been spelt out in detail before, to the effect that it is not true that people who receive dividends actually reinvest them rather than spend them, and therefore there is no reason why we should not have a Coroporation Tax which encourages people to plough the profits which are made on their investments back into the particular firms in which they are already investing.
It the Chief Secretary's argument is correct and people really do rely on the


dividends which they receive to spend rather than to save and reinvest, the ploughing back of the profits in the way that the Corporation Tax is alleged to encourage will merely mean that people holding shares will sell some of them and spend whatever they realise instead. The argument is clearly founded on a fallacy. Even if that were not so, the fact is that what is relevant is not whether people are investing but whether they are investing in the right companies.
The trouble with Corporation Tax is that it encourages firms which already have capital to plough it back instead of putting it into the market where it can be reinvested in those companies which are likely to offer a higher rate of return, which in turn means that the community as a whole will benefit most. Therefore, I thought that the Chief Secretary's speech was extremely inadequate.
I turn now to the question of the regulator and the Budget judgment. It is surely the case that the judgment which the Chancellor made in his Budget speech has been completely invalidated, and therefore we are being asked to consider this Bill in a completely different context from that which was apparent to the Chancellor at the time of his Budget judgment. I hope that in the reply to this debate we shall have some real reappraisal of what the Chancellor's expectations are now, at the time when we are being asked to give this Bill a Third Reading, rather than at the time of his Budget speech, or the Second Reading of the Bill.
The extraordinary situation now arises that the measures introduced in the Budget, in particular the Betting and Gaming Tax and the Selective Employment Tax, will come into effect after the measures which have been introduced during the last few days. There has been an extraordinary cross-over in the implementation of the measures which have been announced in this House.
The relevant question—and I ask it in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because it may be puzzling many people in the House, and in the country as a whole—relates to the position with regard to Clause 16. As the House knows, this Clause refers to the regulator and it relates to the continuation of the regula-

tor powers under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1961. The powers given to the Government under the Finance Act of last year have been used, partially it is true, by the Chancellor during the last few days. The powers which we are continuing in this Bill presumably refer to the same powers. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the powers which we are granting in this Bill are a continuation of the previous powers in which case, presumably, as far as the taxes which have been raised are concerned, the Chancellor cannot raise them again, though he could, presumably, lower them, or whether they are additional to the powers covered in the 1965 Act.

Mr. MacDermot: Assuming that this Bill is passed, there will be no need for any further Order to continue the effect of the Order which was laid before the House and passed last night.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he has not quite taken my point. I shall gladly give way again if he wishes me to do so, or perhaps he can deal with it later.
If this Bill continues the powers which were given in the 1965 Act, for example, to raise the duty on petrol, then it merely enables the Chancellor to continue to raise the tax on petrol by 10 per cent. Or does it enable him to raise it a further 10 per cent. at some later stage? It is very important to get this clear, for reasons which I shall refer to now.
Clearly the situation with regard to taxes which have not been changed, for example tobacco taxes, would be unaffected, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that when action was taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to use the regulator, as soon as we came to the next Finance Bill it was incorporated into the Measure, and we went back to square one. It is not clear whether we are back to square one. I do not want to detain the House for much longer, but I want to follow on from what I have said and stress that we are entitled to a real appraisal of what the Chancellor's expectations are over the next year.
After the debate on the regulator, a number of papers, the Financial Times, for example, took up the point that while


there was every case for demoting the Budget as an annual event, there was not a case for demoting the Budget speech, and they deplored the fact that the Chancellor gave less information about his real Budget judgment than any other Chancellor they could recall.
I hope that we shall have this reappraisal, because so many variables are being changed. For example, the impact on investment of, on the one hand, imposing the Selective Employment Tax, and on the other, having a prices and wages freeze, will be very grave, and clearly the effect of this on profits, and therefore on investable funds, will be substantial. Presumably, therefore, the Chancellor's expectations when he formulated this Bill have been altered. I do not want to go into a quarter-by-quarter appraisal of the sort that we had in Committee, but I hope that the Chancellor will give us some sort of appraisal over the period.
When we discussed the regulator in Commit tee, we emphasised that the S.E.T. would have an enormous deflationary impact between September and February, and that after February it would have a considerable reinflationary effect as the premiums and refunds were paid out. We asked the Chancellor why, if he foresaw a reasonably steady level of demand in the next year, he should take this terrific deflationary action in September and re-inflate again in the spring? I think that the situation between now and the autumn is all too apparent. It is very gloomy indeed, but we can see some sort of rationale to it, although we disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's approach and lament the fact that he could not foresee what was apparent to us all during the Committee stage of the Bill.
What action does the Chancellor propose to take when the time comes to pay out the refund and the premium? It is difficult to visualise any situation in the spring where the Chancellor will want to reinflate by that amount. This means that what he has to do is to collect the money twice to pay out the refund and premium, once through S.E.T., and again through some other Measure. If he is not to weaken foreign confidence by effectively building into the next few months a situation where a reinflationary action is positively proposed for the spring, it is essential that he should have

the full regulator powers, and in Committee we suggested that he might need to use these in the spring to offset the reinflationary effect of the S.E.T. refund and premium. But, as I understand it, the regulator powers have been largely exhausted, and therefore it is very important that we should be clear whether the Chancellor proposes to take additional powers in this respect or not.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It has been common ground on both sides of the House that as we approach the final rites of the Finance Bill we do so in an air of unreality, because they have been overtaken by events which, I hasten to add, it would be out of order to dwell on for long.
During the course of our discussions in Committee I detected among the Treasury spokesmen a marked likeness to the character of which Coleridge wrote in the Ancient Mariner, the traveller
that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.
The frightful fiend was exposed in all its fury on 20th July. It is this which has given this air of unreality and irrelevance to the proceedings on which we are engaged. Yet I venture to suggest to the House that this Bill is not irrelevant in the sense that it is not likely to have any effect on the economy of the country. On the contrary, it will have a largely pernicious effect.
We have only to examine a number of its more important provisions to realise how pernicious it will be. What we are trying to achieve in our economy is a state of vibrancy—to use the expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell)—a more resilient, thrusting and enterprising economy. What we find in the Bill is a series of measures which, to a greater or lesser extent, seem calculated to reduce incentives, depress investment and increase the rigidity of the economy. It is this that we complain about and criticise in the whole pattern of the Bill.
Let us consider some of its provisions. First, Clause 25 swipes at share options granted to managements of businesses as


one form in which they might be encouraged to take a stake in the business and become more personally involved in its success and profit. Hitherto the law on this matter has been somewhat obscure, but it appears to have been on the basis that an option was taxed at the value of that option when it was first granted. Last year the Capital Gains Tax was introduced. It might be more just to maintain—although it would be economically unsound—that the option should be taxed when it is realised at the Capital Gains Tax rate, but that is not what the Clause does. It treats the gain made on the realisation of a stock option as a Schedule E emolument at the time when it is realised.
This cannot be in the interests of our economy. At a time when everyone is asking management at all levels to give more of its skill and energy to running business, to put more into business, and to improve the quality and skill of management, to deprive the enterprises which these people are managing of the chance of rewarding them in a way calculated to unify both the interests of the firm and those managers seems to be clean contrary to everything that the economy requires.
Let us next consider the rate of Corporation Tax, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has referred. It cannot now be doubted that to impose a rate of 40 per cent. Corporation Tax is substantially to increase the burden of taxation on industry. Is this the way to create a buoyant industry, which will be encouraged to invest and expand, or is it, on the contrary, merely saddling industry with an extra burden of taxation which is bound to make the whole process of our economic future more sluggish and depressed?
Let us consider the swipe which has been taken at the more recent and efficient form of friendly society. It may be a small matter, but it has its relevance to savings. The country depends upon the savings of the people being channelled through the institutions of the City to productive investment and also to investment in Government securities. The friendly societies in this new form, which have been hit by Clause 29, provided one means by which this could be

achieved. But they offended the egalitarian theories of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, whatever the consequences to the greater efficiency of the economy and the encouragement of savings and investment in industry, a swipe had to be taken at them.
Clause 30 withdraws relief for underlying tax on portfolio investment in the Commonwealth. In our debates last year it was frequently asked of the Government, "Granted that you want to discourage future overseas investment and to make it more discriminating, why did you have to introduce taxation changes which struck such a savage blow at all existing overseas investment?"
Last year the Government introduced a provision giving advance warning to investors in the Commonwealth that they would withdraw this relief. That warning had a very short life. Clause 30 withdraws that relief, pursuant to that warning, at the earliest possible opportunity—another hit at investment and enterprise on which the country depends.
One of the most serious measures is the withdrawal of the investment allowances and free depreciation. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said a few moments ago that this is being compensated for by the introduction, under the Industrial Development Bill, of a new system of investment grants. Hon. Members opposite are suffering from an astonishing amount of self-delusion if they seriously continue to believe that those new investment grants offer anything like comparable value with the investment allowances which the Bill removes.
Over and over again my hon. Friends have said that what industry wanted was free depreciation. The enormous upsurge of investment in the development districts following the introduction of free depreciation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his 1963 Budget was ample testimony to that. Granted that the Chancellor would be unable to introduce complete free depreciation at one go, and that it might be unrealistic to expect him, in present circumstances, to take any further steps in that direction this year, to set his face wholly and blackly against any form of free depreciation, as the Bill appears to do, is the height of irresponsibility.
There is little doubt that this form of investment incentive gives the maximum encouragement to investment. It can be readily adapted to what is now the development area concept, and it is extraordinarily depressing that the Government should not be prepared even to countenance it.

Mr. Sheldon: If the system of investment allowances was so good, why is it that 63 per cent. of our machine tools are over 10 years old?

Mr. Jenkin: I will deal with that point. I believe the hon. Member has quoted a figure from a technical journal. I accept his figure as being correct. But it is common ground that one needs to increase the amount of investment and also its quality—which is another aspect that is not always remembered. It is common ground that it is among the users of machine tools in particular that the need to put in more modern plant is paramount. But that begs the question. Does the hon. Member believe that the incentives contained in the Industrial Development Bill are more valuable than the incentive withdrawn by the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes.

Mr. Jenkin: The Chancellor says, "Yes". I wonder whether he has studied the series of Answers given to me by the President of the Board of Trade on 1st July, in which he spelt out the response to a series of cases which I put to him of variations in the net present worth of the discounted cash flow of investments in a variety of different projects under a variety of different circumstances. If he did, he could not possibly say that he thinks the new system is more valuable.
What those figures show beyond peradventure—they were designed to take not the most extreme case in my favour but a neutral case—is that even for qualifying industrial plant, even if the whole of the investment qualifies for grant under the new system, the combination of the change in the taxation system and the change in the form of investment incentive has left firms substantially worse off.
Not only that, but they have narrowed the margin of advantage between the development areas and the rest of the coun-

try. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was recently at an engineering firm in Glasgow. That firm had worked out its calculations on the net present worth of a discounted cash flow of the sort of investment it has put in and it found that the effect had been to halve the value of the investment grant compared with what had existed before—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All I can tell him is that those in industry who do these calculations—more and more firms are engaging in this very sophisticated form of investment appraisal, as was recommended by the pamphlet of that name by the N.E.D.C.—have no doubt whatever where the advantage lies.
They know that the advantage lay with the old system which this Bill withdraws and that the new system which is introduced is, in the great majority of cases, even for those who qualify for the new grants, substantially less advantageous—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman goes on shaking his head. No doubt he will answer what I am saying when he replies to the debate.
I am prepared to concede that the new system is advantageous in three cases. One is that of the company which makes no profits. We have criticised that very fiercely; the advantage of the allowances should be subject to the test of profitability. The second is that of the company which was not in a development district but is now in a development area, that is to say, those areas which are of lesser importance. Finally there is the case of the company—of which there are some but relatively few—which was investing so fast that its investment incentives never caught up with its taxable profits—

Mr. Gower: Does my hon. Friend not also feel some anxiety about the wider field of discretion which is now the Treasury's?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he sat in on part of the proceedings on the Industrial Development Bill, he knows that we attacked this


fiercely. I was ignoring all those points which one could properly put against the Government. Taking even the Government's own case, the case of machinery, the whole of which qualifies for the new grants and comparing it with the allowances which they got under the old one—

Mr. Callaghan: I keep irritating the hon. Member by shaking my head because he is ignoring one or two important points. I agree that, on a discounted cash flow technique—all of which was examined—one could prove, by sheer arithmetic, that in some cases the grants are not as valuable as the tax credits. What he has not referred to, however, is that one is a grant and the other is a tax credit. That has a considerable effect on motivation. All the evidence on this is piling up, and, of course, the cash grant is to be paid earlier.

Mr. Jenkin: It is rather unfortunate that the Government by their policies should, in the first place, recognise that industry's techniques for appraising investments are defective but then, instead of attempting seriously to get down to correcting that, should devise their whole policies on the footing that industry should continue to perpetuate these errors—

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Jenkin: This is exactly what the Government have done—if the firms carry out an appraisal correctly—as the right hon. Gentleman has conceded, he said that, in some cases-I would have said in most cases—the old system can be shown to be more valuable than the new. It cannot lie with him to say that, nevertheless, the new system, if one did one's sums wrong, could be made to look more favourable than the old. That is what he is saying—

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, indeed. This is the whole of our case against what we regard as a deplorable and regrettable change.
There are many other criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman can talk about arithmetic as he likes, but when one is doing a quantitative assessment of the profitability of an investment, it is the

arithmetic which counts. If one chooses to ignore the arithmetic and proceed on other factors, one can be led into very grave error.
Another point which the right hon. Gentleman made in his short intervention was that the new grants are to be paid sooner. We will believe that when we see it. There is no timetable in the Bill for their introduction. The figures which I was quoting, given to me by the President of the Board of Trade in a Written Answer on 1st July, assumed a position midway between the 18 and the six-months' period which is intended eventually to apply.
A discounted cash flow technique takes into account exactly the period in which a payment or a tax relief becomes available. It is because it is sensitive to these factors that it is the most reliable way of appraising an investment—

Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is making a great deal of figures which are based on six or seven assumptions. Each of these assumptions could have been made totally differently. If they had been made only slightly differently, all six or seven would have shown a massively wide range of different answers.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. In a discounted cash flow calculation, one must, of course, make assumptions. One must make assumptions about the rate of profit and the profitability of the rest of the business—so as to set off the taxation allowances against the other profits in the early years—about the scrap value of the asset at the end of its life and about the rate of distribution.
All I am suggesting is that the assumptions which were written into those Parliamentary Answers were completely reasonable, particularly as they related to the rate of distribution, where they assumed the same overall rate of tax before and after the change. However, I will not labour the point. The figures are there for all to read.
I leave the Chancellor with this thought. Those who do these calculations in industry are finding increasingly that the Answers to those Questions of 1st July reflect their own experience and that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that the new system


is more valuable than the old are deluding themselves and making a mockery of themselves in front of those who know the real answers.
I come finally to the Selective Employment Tax. Enough has been said about this to point the extent to which it will distort the pattern of the economy in small ways and large. Perhaps the most ludicrous feature of the whole matter and one which has been severely criticised both within and without the House is the provision which subsidises employers of labour by giving them an extra weekly sum of money for every man whom they employ.
How, in heaven's name, faced with the need to "shake out" or get redeployment or—to be more honest—to increase the level of unemployment, that sort of provision could still be defended absolutely passes my understanding.
I should like briefly to touch on three matters which seem to me to relate to a very important aspect of what I would call "revenue morality". They deal with Clause 24, the question of spreading the Surtax, Clause 28, dealing with dividends out of pre-Corporation Tax profits, and Clause 39, which deals with the very wide anti-avoidance provisions in Clause 28 of the 1960 Act.
These three measures are all unworthy of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, in the face of the criticisms which have been advanced against them both within and without the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) summed up the anti-Surtax-spreading provision and pointed out that the Government were suspending justice for a year. The relief under Section 228 of the Income Tax Act, the operation of which is being suspended, was designed to make such adjustments "as are just", but the Government, by this Clause, are depriving themselves of the opportunity of being just.
Clause 28 deals with the one-year and three-year surplus of dividends and we have yet to hear a word of apology to the business community, which was sadly misled by the provisions written into last year's Finance Act. The Chancellor has acknowledged that there was a mistake. He could not have done otherwise. But not a word of apology has he uttered for the problems and difficulties which

that mistake caused to the business community. In many cases people laid out their affairs based on last year's Act, only to find that they had been misled and deluded. The least the right hon. Gentleman can now do is to apologise.
My only comment about Clause 39 is that the provisions of Section 28 of the 1960 Act have been fiercely criticised by those who must advise businesses and taxpayers on the arrangement of their affairs. I will not weary the House by requoting the words I quoted in our earlier debates. I am sure that the Chancellor has read those two contrasting quotations I gave on Report, one from a speech by the then Attorney-General in 1960, when he introduced Section 28, and the other, some words of Lord Justice Danckwerts in a recent case in the Court of Appeal. Those two quotations cannot stand side by side while, at the same time, the Revenue and the Treasury attempt to preserve their reputation for morality in these matters. Something must be done. Either the Clause must be amended next year or other measures taken, perhaps by an instruction being given to Inland Revenue inspectors about the way they should administer the Clause.
These three matters underline the overriding importance in the Treasury preserving the taxpayers' respect for it. That can be done only by its maintaining the highest possible standards of justice and fiscal integrity. I am sorry to say that all three of these Measures represent a falling off of those standards, standards which we are entitled to expect and which must inevitably, if they are reduced, lead to corresponding irritation and cynicism on the part of taxpayers. That cannot be in the best interests of the Revenue and it would be unwise to follow the recent precedents that have been set.
I have made a number of serious and important criticisms of the Bill. In view of these criticisms and others which many of my hon. Friends have made, it would be wrong if we were to allow this Measure to pass without expressing our disapproval of it by dividing the House against it.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: To those of us who, at the last General


Election, said, "Wait and see what a Labour Chancellor will do after 1st April", this Measure has come as a complete and grievously disappointing vindication. Its fault is that it is all penalty and burden and offers far too little encouragement.
If the Bill is the Labour Party's only alternative to devaluation, perhaps that is the best thing that can be said for it. I dislike hearing people use the word "devaluation" unless, at the same time, it is stressed that its supreme disadvantage, which has not been mentioned today, is that it would greatly add to the real burden of our debts and diminish our capacity to repay them.
That apart, the Bill has several great defects. I am particularly disappointed because—and this is partly due to the time given to it—it has not provided enough opportunity to remedy some of the anomalies which still remain from the Finance Act of the preceding year. Considering the trouble and uncertainty that has been caused to accountants and taxpayers, it is probable that we will need another Finance Bill at some stage, merely to make good the defects that continue. I would like to see the Treasury making a real effort to simplify some of the administration. We should have a better de nnnimis rule in working out some of the small tax liabilities which at present take up an amount of professional effort disproportionate to any tax yield.
Under the preceding Measure, as well as this one, practically every schoolboy and schoolgirl with a pass in G.C.E. in maths will be able to find remunerative employment, either in the files department of the Inland Revenue or in accountants' offices taking part in what has become a gigantic national imposition—the registration and recording of every Stock Exchange transaction, however small, to calculate whether or not—in respect of, say, a poor person, perhaps a widow with a few shares—there is some tax liability.
I have been checking up in my constituency and with some London accountants' firms. These firms say that they are absolutely clogged by the sheer weight of purely unproductive work. The costs of the imposing exceed any revenue

that might accrue by way of taxation. This state of affairs must be plain nonsense at a time when we are short of labour and every type of trained skill.
Selective Employment Tax will bear harshly on my constituents as much as on those of any other hon. Member, particularly on disabled and part-time workers. Such alleged remedies that have recently been given to the hotel industry do not make up for the treatment meted out to it by S.E.T., particularly in view of the absence of any proper investment allowances. That is clearly borne out by a letter from Sir Geoffrey Crowther, a great expert in these matters, in The Times this morning. His firm has invested a great deal in a hotel in my constituency, an extremely worthwhile development which I am sure would not have been achieved had the Government's latest proposals been in force.
I am worried, too, because of the likely effect of S.E.T., now that it will have only small easements, on many businesses, particularly on some private schools which also provide homes for children whose parents are overseas. These children are often dependent on such schools for the care and attention of a home as well as tuition while their parents are necessarily abroad. Some of these schools rely very much on part-time help, domestic and teaching. Even to a small school this can make a tax difference almost equal to the livelihood of the people running the school. It could easily have the effect of taking. £1,000 away from a school which has only 50 or 70 pupils. This is a serious matter for that type of undertaking, just as it is for any small business, which may find itself penalised in what would otherwise be open competition with local authorities on, for example, contract work. Some businesses and farms that will have to find this tax are already pressed to the limit of their bank credit. The disadvantage of the tax is that for those who have to pay it there is very often no option. It is not merely a question of discharging people and in that way saving the tax. It may be that the payment of the tax makes a business no longer worth while carrying on. That is a very bad tendency to have in the countryside.
The Selective Employment Tax worries me, because from September onwards


it will take out of the economy about £100 million a month until such time as repayments fall due when, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), we will have a period of sharp reflation. This tax, starting out on a fixed pattern, may well become a very serious factor which we cannot control. I may be at fault, but nowhere in this Bill, or in any of the other legislation dealing with this tax, can I find any provision, short of an Act of Parliament, for reducing the incidence of the tax, yet such a reduction might be highly desirable and very important. It seems to be a curiously inflexible tax to be brought in by a Government which say that manipulation of the economy is so important.
The big danger of this Finance Bill is its cumulative effect of deterrence, which may defeat the Government's own plans for maintaining and, if possible, increasing the level of production and the growth of productivity. It is much more likely that those who should be making important investment decisions, and making every extra effort to improve their businesses, will decide, in view of the economic storm and the dangers of taking on extra risks, just to batten down the hatches and weather the storm. That will produce the worst possible effect on our economy, but it is the most likely consequence of the Bill. Too many people in the next year or so will prefer extra leisure to extra effort, and that is not in the national interest.

6.3 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I only want to put a brief point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, with his serried ranks of Treasury experts, he should not find difficult to answer. With the passage of time, and the onset of events since the introduction of this Finance Bill, it is probably inevitable that this discussion should put the emphasis on the deflationary effect. That is true of this Bill and of subsequent Measures. When we first started to discuss this Bill, I remember the right hon. Gentleman, resisting certain Amendments, making the plea that all Chancellors of the Exchequer make, that the provision was essential as he had to raise revenue. I presume that this was to pay for all the Measures that have been introduced

in the last two years. We have had a good deal of tough talk in that time, but, at the same time, quite a lot of expensive Measures have been brought in by the Government. I assume that this present Measure is one of the bills that has now been presented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has expressed the hope that some of the money being collected will be used to reduce the National Debt. I wish that were the case, but I very much doubt it. Not only are we not likely to reduce it, but, as we know, we are at present selling our assets in order to pay our way. It is a very serious state of affairs. What amount of the money resulting from this Finance Bill—and from the other packages, for that matter—will be used for revenue purposes, and what for debt reduction? That figure may have been produced somewhere, but as the ordinary Member is not always an expert in finance and is without the resources to keep a check on the large impositions of recent weeks, I have no idea what amount will go to revenue and what amount, if any, to reduce debts.
If the Government spend all this money, it will obviously have an inflationary effect. We will then be back in what I think of as the nightmare process of two years of the Government pumping money into the system and the Chancellor of the Exchequer fighting a losing battle to draw it back. I well recall the right hon. Gentleman remarking in the Budget debate that he sometimes feared that rising prices would always be with us. They always will be with us, of course, if we pump money into the system and only belatedly draw it out again.
I therefore hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will let us know what is being done with all this money. Is it being used for revenue purposes? Is it being used to redeem debts? That information will enable us to judge fairly what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at. If I knew that it was being creamed back to redeem debt, it would in many ways greatly lessen my opposition to some of these Measures.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably agree that from this side he has


heard a series of pertinent, sometimes critical, but never unfair speeches. We recognise, as any responsible Opposition must, that dependent as we are on imports of raw materials and food, this is an extraordinarily difficult country to run and that it would be folly for any of us ever to suggest that it is easy to keep Britain's affairs always in balance. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the anxieties and criticisms that have been expressed are valid in some cases.
For example, what is extraordinary to some of us is that while, doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman has had some real difficulties in the last two years, he has at the same time contrived to introduce such far-reaching successive changes in our taxation system, of which the latter portion of this Bill is part. One thinks at once of the problems of those engaged in the economy, and in industry, in particular. If these changes in taxation are far-reaching for the Treasury and for the Inland Revenue, they are also far-reaching and extraordinarily disturbing for those who have to administer some of our great productive companies. In the last 18 months they have had to cope with the introduction of a new system of company taxation, and now with such revolutionary changes as the Selective Employment Tax embodied in Part II of the Bill. It seems that possibly the Chancellor has added to his difficulties by rushing through these very big changes at such a speed that they cannot easily be digested either by the administration of the Inland Revenue or the administration of companies and their professional advisers.
In his remarks earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) asked pertinently, I thought almost plaintively, "Does this Finance Bill achieve the right degree of deflation?" If it does, it could not have done so when it was published. If it did achieve the right amount of deflation at the time when it was published, it must be too deflationary at present. That is the only conclusion we can reach. I would not press that too far, because I recognise that there have been changes since the publication of the Bill, not all of which could easily have been foreseen.
Nevertheless, it seems that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), when referring to more taxes and new taxes, reflected a rather strange kind of thought which seems to be shared by a number of hon. Members on the benches opposite. It is perhaps not surprising that they seem to think in terms of new taxes and more taxes. While we on these benches share a general ambition to broaden the tax base, we want that to be associated in due course with reductions of taxation in other sectors.
I think I speak for a large majority of this side of the House in saying that it is no good achieving a widening of the tax base if at the same time we tend to increase taxation in every direction and every part of the taxation system. As has been said, taxation by this Bill alone has been increased very greatly indeed. It has been increased, of course, by the Income Tax, by the Surtax and by the Corporation Tax at 40 per cent. All this represents a very large increase in taxation. This is the culmination of previous increases in taxation which occurred in the last 15 months prior to the presentation of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne also, I think, betrayed a kind of thinking which is all too prevalent among some of his colleagues when he suggested that investment grants were preferable to investment allowances because they would enable the Treasury to control the economy always in desirable directions. This is a relic of the old saying attributed, perhaps wrongly, to the present President of the Board of Trade, that "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best." I fear that there is much thought opposite that the Treasury knows best, that the Government know best, and that they can decide more effectively than anyone else the best future trends for our economy.

Mr. Barnett: Surely the hon. Member has seen the figures in various reports relating to the increase, or lack of increase, in investment related to the position when investment allowances applied?

Mr. Gower: Yes, but the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne went much further. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. I could not warn him at such short notice that I


would refer to what he said. He suggested that it would be better that the Government should decide which particular company should receive an investment grant, in other words that the Treasury and the Government should decide what was best for the country. If that had applied in Japan immediately after the war, how many would have decided that transistor radios would be one of the best things which Japan could introduce? Similarly, how many in Italy could have foreseen that production of beachwear and shoes would provide one of the most automatic means of helping their economy?
Businessmen can make serious mistakes, but, by golly, Governments can make much more serious mistakes—much more serious in their consequences. That is why I am deeply anxious, not only for the reasons stated clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), whose views I share about investment allowances being preferable to investment grants, but for the extra reason that I do not like this discretion. We should have heard more about how it would be exercised. I do not like the wide discretion to be given to the Treasury in the giving of this new form of grants.
This Bill in its present form does not achieve many of the things which we on this side of the House believe most desirable for our country. It does not in its present form provide any sort of stimulus, except the granting of premiums in the Selective Employment Tax arrangements. This is the only form of stimulus in the Bill. Enough has been said about that to make it appear that there are severe grounds for criticism. Very few, if any, proposals in the Bill appear to make for greater industrial efficiency. There is certainly nothing in the Bill as it stands to promote savings, nothing to encourage private investment, and nothing to provide one of the most important things, namely wider diffusion of ownership of industry among the people.
Many of my hon. Friends have criticised the Selective Employment Tax as presented in this Bill. I share their deep anxieties about it. The tax as in the Bill at present will be collected from all parts of the country. It will be collected from urban and rural areas alike, from the prosperous and the less prosperous parts, from

the development areas and the rich manufacturing areas. It will be collected from the farming areas and the holiday resorts. It will be collected from factories employing disabled persons, factories employing elderly persons and factories employing part-timers.
We read on the front page of the Bill: "As amended in Committee and on Report". We can only deeply regret that it was amended so slightly in Committee and that no improvements were made, particularly in this part of the Bill. In its effect it will permit the Government under their present proposals to pay out the premiums to all kinds of productive industry, the good and not so good, the vital and the not so vital—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member must know that the pay-out is in another Bill and that it is out of order to refer to it in discussion of this Bill.

Mr. Gower: Certainly other hon. Members referred to it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was led astray. I share the views of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton on this point. He admitted that there is need for a substantial amendment of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Barnett: I was referring to the premiums, which, of course, are in another Bill.

Mr. Gower: That is one of the reasons why I was led astray. As several of my hon. Friends have said, the Bill has taken us a stage further along a course of ever-increasing taxation in the last 18 months—burdensome to industry, excessive in the case of the individual, and not contributing to stimulating either investment or effort. We can only express the deepest anxiety about it. I hope that the Chancellor will heed the criticisms and anxieties which have been expressed.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) referred in the most interesting terms to the extreme difficulties of prediction in economic affairs, whether it be prediction in terms of technology or in terms of the requirements of the market. My hon. Friend mentioned transistor radios from Japan. One of the things which astonished me most on my


last visit to Japan was the extraordinarily high number of what are known as fruit machines which the Japanese people seem to enjoy employing in their leisure time.
I make this point deliberately, because we are today—the Bill certainly registers this point of view—growing dangerously near the position where, having decided what is to be taken by the public sector and what is to be taken by the private sector, we then, in a secondary phase of our judgment, heavily criticise how the private sector deploys its resources. It is very dangerous to allow this to happen, because, having made our decision through all the collective pressures of political discussion and decision, we must surely allow the private sector to deploy its resources in whatever manner it sees fit.
It may be amusing if I refer to something said quite a long time ago by a man who was regarded as a prophet and, indeed, as an authority. I refer to Maynard Keynes. In 1925 Maynard Keynes, referring in one of his great essays on the economic possibilities for his grandchildren to the sick man of Europe at that time—France—and to the devaluation of the French franc and its relationship to the £, said this:
One blames politicians, not for inconsistency, but for obstinacy. They are the interpreters, not the masters, of our fate. It is their job, in short, to register the fait accompli.
Perhaps we are registering this evening on this Bill a fait accompli.
I draw the attention of the Chancellor to one other form of registration to which we should pay particular attention. That is the registration of this vexed question of employment and unemployment. The Selective Employment Tax, which is a considerable part of the Bill, will tempt the Chancellor and other Ministers to refer repeatedly to the index of unemployment.
This is one of the most dangerous criteria which we in the House of Commons can consider as being important today, for these reasons. It is not that we want to maximise the employment figure as it stands and to minimise the unemployment figure—this very crude index. What we want to maximise is employment in the sectors of highest productivity. We want to bring the

facilities for retraining and redeployment into balance with the rate of technological change. We want to deal with the maximum of humanity and understanding with the unemployable, the inefficient, the incompetent, the lazy, and the unfortunate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide on Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that he will return to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In the half a minute remaining to me I will return to the contents of the Bill and conclude by again quoting a prophet whom the House will surely accept as being a far greater prophet than I can ever hope to be. This perfection which I think lies behind the thinking of the Government in this Finance Bill and in many other of their measures is a philosophy of idealism. This is what Keynes said:
For at least a hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury moved the Third Reading of the Bill and delivered a short panegyric about the benefits it would undoubtedly bring to the country and as to the excellence of its drafting, I wondered whether for the last two and a half months he and I had been discussing the same Measure in the House. I came to the conclusion that we had not and that that accounted for some of the answers which we received from the Treasury Bench during the course of these debates.
To put it mildly, the circumstances are unusual. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) said, the basic assumptions which were made at the time of the Budget are no longer tenable after the statement made by the Prime Minister last week. The assumptions of full employment, which was the answer given over and over again to the problems of the disabled, the part-time and others affected by the Bill, are no longer answers which could have been given today, although they were given a week or two ago.
The Bill is the child of the Budget speech. The truth is that it has been strangled by its father, who is about to join in the wake in a few minutes. We are debating for a short time something quite unreal and unrelated to the Budget speech which was made on 3rd May.
It is traditional on these occasions for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Shadow Chancellor to have a sort of brief prize giving. I gladly and willingly follow that custom. I have found it a great pleasure once more to be the opponent of the Chancellor on a major Bill. I have always been grateful to him since the years when I was Colonial Secretary and he was my shadow. I do not forget the help he then gave me.
Throughout the Bill, with the exception of Clauses 42 and 44, for reasons which the Chancellor understands very well, we have always known exactly where we were going to get to, even though it sometimes took us a little longer than usual. This knowledge was for the convenience of the House always.
The Chancellor has been courteous to me at ad times. I am extremely grateful to him. We have managed the timing this evening correctly. As long as the Chancellor manages to remember to sit down at one minute to seven, we shall then be able, with good luck, to conclude the proceedings.
I saw in the paper that the Chancellor had retired to his cottage exhausted by his labours in carrying through the Finance Bill. I cannot believe that this is true, because we have not seen a great deal of him during these long days and nights. He has left the work to his chief lieutenants.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I thought, was always cool and courteous. If we did not like his answers, that is not unusual in an Opposition. We had a real respect for him. That respect grew as the weeks went by.
I wish that I could be as complimentary to the Chief Secretary, but I cannot be. I do not think that he was happy in his handling of the S.E.T. Clauses in the Bill, simply because we did not think he cared enough about a problem which is essentially a deep human problem. Whenever hovercraft were mentioned, the Chief Secretary went berserk. I could only

conclude that he had been bitten by a rural bus at one stage. However, I am feeling in a generous mood. I will simply say that I think that the Chief Secretary took a year's sabbatical leave of his senses.
Turning now to my own side of the House, the House will understand if I pay a warm and sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). She has been efficient and tireless as we have gone through the Bill. Her performance has been very much admired on both sides of the House and outside the House.
I will lump together all my remaining assistants. I was baffled, as always—and I think that the Chancellor was sometimes—by their erudition, and I am grateful to them for the very hard work they have put in. I should not like to forget words of thanks to the Chair, both in the House and in Committee. The fact that at one time we were in dispute with the Chair in Committee has nothing to do with the sincerity of our gratitude to its occupants, which I also extend to the staff of the House.
First, I want to say something about the betting and gaming taxes. The betting tax is, of course, wholly supported. We think that it is being done the wrong way round, but I shall not argue the case again now. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking enough out of the gaming industry, and I hope that he will look at this again. We were in an odd position here in that we were trying to get the Chancellor to take more, but he refused to do so. It was curious for a Chancellor, but that was his attitude both towards our gaming proposals and when we tried to stop him paying out £133 million in premiums. The Treasury was determined to collect as little as it reasonably could, however, and to spend as much as it possibly could. It seems an odd way to run the Treasury.
I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen know this, but perhaps they will take it from me. The gaming going on in London is not only much higher than anywhere else in the world but probably higher than it has ever been in any previously recorded time. I shall not give the figures because I do not believe that people would accept the figures I gave. They would find them almost unbelievable.
The Chancellor must look at this again. It is a very dangerous position. I have expressed my own view—there is no party line in this. I am not for trying to stamp gaming out—that would be a fundamentally foolish approach—but I believe that it is right to soak it good and hard, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should turn to this again next year.
I shall say little about the Selective Employment Tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley rightly pointed out that the collection, which starts on 5th September at the annual rate of £1,100 million, is the highest impost, as far as I know, that has ever been put in any Finance Bill upon the people of Britain. We debated the dangers of this yesterday and have referred to them on a number of occasions during the progress of the Bill.
The level of Corporation Tax has been fixed at 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) went into this in some detail, which enables me to be all the briefer about it. I very much hope that the Government spokesman in another place will give rather more justification for it than the Chief Secretary felt able to do today. The Chancellor will recall what happened on 21st June, and it is very odd that a mistake of this nature could be made by someone who is Chief Secretary and has been an accountant all his working life and who presumably was reinforced by a Treasury brief.
The Chief Secretary explained the point about the eleven month collection of Schedule F, calculated it at £52 million—which is something like 5 per cent. of £1,000 million, the gross figure looked for in Corporation Tax—and said:
Of course, 36 per cent. and 5 per cent. makes 41 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June. 1966; Vol. 730, c. 309.]
There is no "of course" about it. I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that simply is not so. If one increases 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. one doubles it, adding 100 per cent. Therefore, no reason has been given why this extremely high rate of 40 per cent. should be taken. The Chancellor may not feel that he has time to deal with this tonight—and I shall quite understand if that is so—but I hope that the Government spokesman in

another place will spell it out because the business community is entitled to know.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) asked what the view of this side was about the amount of deflation, forgetting the timing, and whether we thought it about right. The answer is in two parts. First, this is now, as are so many others, a wholly irrelevant question after last week's statement. Secondly, I have never disputed—and the Chancellor acknowledged this at the time—that about £240 million in a full year may well have been about the right judgment. That is not in dispute.
What was in dispute—and we debated this at some length yesterday—was the timing of the Chancellor, but the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he was at fault there. The position is that if he had seen the danger earlier—and at least we can claim that we saw it—either we would not have Clause 44 of the Bill or last week's Budget. The failure of the Chancellor is simply that as a result of an error in timing we have got both. That was part of the burden of our complaint.
The Bill is irrelevant both to the Budget of 3rd May and, in a sense, to the measures of last week. The Chancellor has been blown off course—to use the nautical metaphors with which we have been inundated—and it has all been done by a group of tightly knit, politically motivated men which means the Cabinet, although it is not as tightly knit as all that.
Still, the Recess is only a few days away, and how the Chancellor must be longing to get away if only he can get through the mess which still lies ahead. The Government have tried to hustle and curtail debate on the Bill and on others. We have wasted ten weeks of discussion. We have been here night after night watching the dawn come in through those windows or the others—depending on which way one is facing—[Interruption.] I do not know what one sees from the tearoom. I have seen it from this Chamber. As I was saying, we have had all these weeks of discussion and the assumptions on which we were debating have now proved completely unfounded.
I draw the Chancellor's attention to one comment which did a great deal of


harm. It was made by the Chief Secretary on 29th June when we were discussing on Clause 4 the problems of the part-time workers. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said that, as a whole, the Committee was having the better of the argument with the Government, and this was true. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) then said,
… but there has been no argument …
because both sides of the Committee had agreed. The Chief Secretary then replied to my hon. Friend:
Surely the hon. Gentleman has not been absent from every Division."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730. c. 1892.]
The Chief Secretary was saying that argument did not matter—that it did not matter how good a case might be—because there were enough people sitting outside ready to come in at a moment's notice and support the Government against all the arguments and the whole of the case poured on the Treasury Bench from both sides of the Committee.
If the Chancellor likes to look back on our proceedings he will realise that it was from that moment of admission that the Chief Secretary did not care about the arguments or show an interest in what we were saying that some of the difficulties and troubles came. However, the House of Commons is a strange place and I was slightly mollified by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman is in a very amiable mood. It is rather disturbing when one is at the receiving end of Parliamentary operations. For 13 years we were in opposition and were often in the position of having an unanswerable case and finding the Conservative legions coming into the Lobby against us. It is something we all go through, so please do not let the right hon. Gentleman complain too much.

Mr. Macleod: I am not complaining. If the Government go on as they are we shall be back on those benches in a very short time. I was saying that I was mollified to some extent by the frank, open and honest apology that the Chancellor made at the beginning of our two day debate earlier this week, when he said, in effect, "I was wrong, I am sorry, I apologise."
From that moment the Third Reading of this Bill really became irrelevant to the Budget and to all the debates we have had since, so I shall not spend more hours on the Bill—I have an arrangement with the Chancellor to sit down now—which has been so badly handled, which was conceived in entirely different circumstances and which has been based on entirely wrong premises. But we can give it one final blast of contempt with our vote against Third Reading and that we propose to do.

6.40 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I should like at the outset to acknowledge—not merely as a normal courtesy, but because I mean it—the co-operation which I have had, and which the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary have had, from the Opposition Front Bench in the conduct of the debates on the Bill. With our procedures, it certainly makes it easier if, with the general consent of the House or the Committee, it is possible for us to consult and to know where we will get and how we are to conduct the business. Having had some experience of Finance Bills, I can say that it has been done better this year than I have known it for a number of years, and I thank the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
As for his team of 13, not only was I baffled by the erudition of its members, but I never knew where they were going to turn up. They seemed to be like the Argentinians and to play all over the field. Sometimes I saw them in one place and sometimes in another, but they were always putting points which betrayed that they had mastered the two Clauses each which they had been given and that they were determined to ensure that the House knew that they had mastered them. I can only say that from the Treasury Bench we felt as though they were popping up all over the place and we had a very formidable team against us. If only half the number is playing next year, we shall be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall be able to get used to one style of bowling and know what we have to deal with.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for his patience and thoroughness throughout the


whole of the debates. Some harsh words have been uttered, but I should like him to know that he has the full confidence of everyone on this side of the House and, I believe, of very many hon. Members opposite. As for the Financial Secretary; if I may be allowed to echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. and learned Friend's coolness and courtesy in debate and his mastery of betting legislation have been to me a revelation of a new feature of his character. He has instructed me in many things and now he has in betting and gaming.
There is no difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself about betting and gaming in the sense that I feel, whether through puritanical upbringing or whatever it may be, that there is far too much going on nowadays. I think that that view is widely shared throughout the country. I have framed legislation on the advice of those who have studied and know about this matter and who feel that some of the people with whom we are dealing, although not everybody, would take advantage of rates of tax which were fixed too high to evade the provisions. Thereby the rot might spread throughout the system. I think that it is better to start moderately and to ensure as far as possible that the provisions are observed than to fix a high rate knowing that there will be considerable evasion.
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that debate was hustled. To take as an example Clause 44, in Committee when it was Clause 42, we spent on it a whole week of normal Parliamentary time, taking it from 3.30 to 10 at night. That may have been right and I do not complain about it, but it is not proper to say that debate on that issue was hustled.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Finance Bill had been made irrelevant by the events of last week. I should like to relate that to the question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) about the size of the revenue and how it is to be spent, because against that background the right hon. Gentleman will see that he is wrong when he says that the Finance Bill is irrelevant. The answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the

revenue to be raised under the Budgetary proposals amounts to rather more than £10,000 million. How can that be irrelevant when a margin—and it can be only a margin—of £350 million is to be added—not additional revenue but an additional lessening of the pressure on demand as a result of the measures of last week? The additional revenue is much less than that and the right hon. Gentleman is vastly overstating the case when he says that a Budget of £10,000 million is irrelevant because a further £350 million is being added, which in another connection can be said to be about £160 million or £170 million. Of course it is not irrelevant.
To return to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question; total expenditure at about £9,100 million is £1,047 million less than revenue. That is a very large surplus, which is probably a record, although I have not had time to check that since I was asked. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that that is before last week's measures. That £1,040 million surplus in the Budget is hypothecated to the redemption of the National Debt, but then is immediately recovered in order to give assistance to industry of various sorts, including the nationalised industries—and by "assistance" I mean funds for capital investment, the programmes being undertaken in the electricity and gas industries and so on, accounting for £760 million—and to meet other expenditure of which the largest item is the provision of various local authority services—I am referring to capital expenditure—such as housing programmes accounting for £570 million.
Taken together, assistance to industry and local authorities and others, there is a total of £1,330 million, which means that the Government have to borrow about £287 million this year over and above the collection of taxes. What I am certainly expecting is that the largest part of that borrowing will not be through the banking system, but will be raised by genuine borrowing through the National Savings movement and in other ways. In that sense I claim that the Budget is financially and fiscally realistic in that it raises a large surplus—we could argue about the theory of whether we ought to do it this way, but I do not have the time to do that now—"above the line" and that surplus is used to finance the capital needs of the services


which l have mentioned. The amount left for borrowing is very small indeed and I think that I can claim a great deal of support from the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this connection.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred to the way in which we discourage savings, as she thought. I should like to join in the appreciation of the way in which she has put her argument over a long series of weeks. I am not sure that I have identified the case to which she referred, because she did not name it; but if I have identified it, then it is not true that the employer company was providing any benefits for its hourly-paid workers. What it was doing was to sponsor a commercially inspired friendly society—and there is nothing wrong in that—which was originally set up to do the sort of business at which Clause 29 is aimed. That cannot be distinguished from the better known friendly societies of the same kind. It has not been prevented from doing business. What it has been stopped from doing is business free of tax. Perhaps I do not have the right organisation in mind, but I think that I have, because I remember seeing this case.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked me three questions to two of which it would, I think, be out of order for me to reply. The third was about share fishermen, groups of fishermen who own shares in fishing boats, a practice to be found particularly in Scotland. I understand that the normal procedure is that the owner pays the National Insurance contributions for the group of fishermen and would therefore pay the Selective Employment Tax for that group. He would then be able to claim refund in the normal way for the fishermen. Being share fishermen, they may decide to do it in some other way among themselves. There are a great many arrangements made. But I understand that that would be the normal way in which it would be done.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked about the use of the regulator. He asked whether the Clause to which we shall now give a Third Reading would be additional to the powers recently exercised. The answer is, "No". Clause 16 continues the

powers to apply a surcharge of up to 10 per cent. on certain Customs and Excise duties and the Purchase Tax. It does not increase them, and is in no way additional to them. We have not used two out of the five groups for reasons that I think are known to the hon. Gentleman. I would not expect to use them normally. In any case I could not once again increase the 10 per cent. as a result of the passage of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) raised the question of employers being in arrears with their contributions of National Insurance. It is an offence not to pay National Insurance contributions at the proper time. I hope that the hon. Member will direct his staff to this effect when they are doing their audit work. He should tell his staff that an employer who does not pay at the proper time risks prosecution. The proper time is weekly or monthly depending on when wages are paid. When the employer makes the contributions he will have to pay the tax, because it goes on the same stamp.
The tax is already beginning to have an effect in the sense that a number of firms and companies are looking ahead to the liquid financial arrangements they will have to make when they begin to pay the tax in September, so that I would not wholly agree that the tax has no effect until then.
I come now to the questions on the Selective Employment Tax raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) and a number of other hon. Members. From the very outset, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have made clear that there is scope for changes in the tax in the future. The possibilities can be broadly divided into two categories.
First, there are improvements to the existing structure. No tax is ever perfect, no matter how long it lasts. I have undertaken to keep under review the effect of the tax on employers with groups of employees in particular categories such as part-timers, the disabled and the elderly. In addition, we shall need to watch those matters which can be judged only in the light of practical experience. I do not believe, and I do not think that many hon. Members believe, that the tax


will result in the discharge by employers of a large number of disabled or elderly workers. We shall need to watch these matters in the light of experience, and other matters such as the operation of the Standard Industrial Classification and the difficult borderline cases that are bound to come up in particular industries or groups of industries.
I have followed up some of these cases. There was one which achieved a great deal of prominence in the national Press. I asked the company concerned to come to see my officials in the Treasury. I do not blame the company for not having understood the Bill. I am sure that very few of us can understand any Bill at first reading. But when Treasury officials went into the matter with this very large company they found that it was entirely different in its impact from what the company itself—it was quite honest about it—had in good faith assumed. We shall have to watch to see how these borderline cases operate. But I believe that when the tax is in operation we shall find far fewer troubles than people now think.
Secondly, in addition to improving the existing structure, it will be possible to introduce changes to adapt the tax to the changing needs of the economy. This will be for the long term, because we cannot make alterations of substance until the tax is properly launched. Because it is selective, we shall be able to look at the possiblity of varying the impact of the tax between different regions as well as between different sectors of the economy. Over and above the two main ways in which we might want to refine the tax, there will be the possibility of varying the rates of tax and the rates of premium, both absolutely and relatively as the circumstances require.
All in all, and whatever imperfections the tax may be launched with, I am certain that it is an economic instrument of very considerable significance and capability. It is significant that the critics of the new tax have divided themselves into those who think that it is too selective and those who think that it is not selective enough. For the moment, within the limits of the administrative possibilities, I believe that we have about the right amount of selectivity, and that over the

years it will be an instrument capable of a number of variations. In my view—I am not claiming any particular credit for this—it will be an important instrument in the armoury of any future Chancellor.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed very considerable concern about the effects of the tax on the employment of disabled persons. In the debates on the Bill, both my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have explained why we do not think that it should work particularly to the disadvantage of disabled persons. About two-thirds of the disabled in employment work in establishments that will qualify for the premium or refund. There will clearly, therefore, be no incentive to discharge anyone in those establishments.
The remainder, some 200,000, have the protection of the quota and the designated employment scheme. We have said—and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made this clear in another debate—that we shall watch very closely for any signs that the tax is having an adverse effect on the employment of the disabled, and, if necessary, it will be possible to take action accordingly.
I must conclude. There is a number of other points that should be dealt with, but we have rather done the Bill to death at the moment. I understand that the Opposition—and, apparently, the Liberals—are about to vote on the Bill. When they do so they will have reached the nadir of financial irresponsibility.—[Interruption.] Let us see, in the last minute left to me: they will be voting against the betting tax, which the right hon. Gentleman says should be higher; against the casino tax, which he thinks should be increased; against the tax on one-armed bandits, thus saying that they do not believe in a tax on them; against the tax relief given to redundancy payments for those who are put out of a job; against the charge to Income Tax; against the charge to Surtax; against the Corporation Tax; and against the reliefs given for social security benefits to those in need.
There are half a dozen other things they will be voting against. If they had their way—they know that they will not get it—the result of their vote tonight would leave the country without the financial resources with which to carry


on its government. I knew that they were irresponsible. I never knew that they were as bad as all that.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 237.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Ray
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Alldritt, Walter
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunn, James A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Anderson, Donald
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ennals, David
Ledger, Ron


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Barnett Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John (Reading)


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Heaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Belienger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Henn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Floud, Bernard
Lomas, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Binns, John
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Luard, Evan


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H.
Fowler, Gerry
McBride, Neil


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Boston, Terence
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
MacColl, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gardner, A. J.
MacDermot, Niall


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Boyden, James
Garrow, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bradley, Tom
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gourley, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gregory, Arnold
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)


Brown, R. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hannan, Wiliam
Mason, Roy


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara
Haseldine, Norman
Mikardo, Ian


Chapman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooley, Frank
Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Horner, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Cronin, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert


Cullers, Mrs. Alice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold


Dalyell, Tam
Howie, W.
Newens, Stan


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hoy, James
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Dewar, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)





Palmer, Arthur
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tuck, Raphael


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ryan, John
Urwin, T. W.


Park, Trevor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sheldon, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Pentland, Norman
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton, N.E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whitaker, Ben


Probert, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Slater, Joseph
Whitlock, William


Rankin, John
Small, William
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Redhead, Edward
Snow, Julian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reynolds, G. W.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire. S.)
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Symonds, J. B.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Taverne, Dick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woof, Robert


Roebuck, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rose, Paul
Thornton, Ernest
Yates, Victor


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James



Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Holland, Philip


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hooson, Emlyn


Astor, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hordern, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, W. H. K.
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bessell, Peter
Farr, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Fortescue, Tim
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bossom, Sir Clive
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brains, Bernard
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kirk, Peter


Brewis, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kitson, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col, Sir Walter
Goodhart, Philip
Lamhton, Viscount


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gower, Raymond
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grant, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bryan, Paul
Grant-Ferris, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grimond, Rt. Hn.[...]
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Campbell, Gordon
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Longden, Gilbert


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Loveys, W. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lubbock, Eric


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Clegg Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Cordle, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
McMaster, Stanley


Corfield, F. V.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Contain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul
Maginnis, John E.


Crawley Aidan
Hay, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Crouch, David
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maude, Angus


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heseltine, Michael
Mawhy, Ray


Currie, G. B. H.
Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Dalfreith, Earl of
Riley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)







Miscampbell, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Temple, John M.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Monro, Hector
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorpe, Jeremy


More, Jasper
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tilney, John


Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wainwright, Richard (Come Valley)


Murton, Oscar
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Roots, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornaey)
Wall, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Royle, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Onslow, Cranley
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Webster, David


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Sharpies, Richard
Whitelaw, William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peel, John
Stodart, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer
Worsley, Maurice


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Talbot, John E.
Wylie, N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Tepsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Pounder, Ration
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Prior, J. M. L.
Teeling, Sir William

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed

Orders of the Day — TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to consider a Bill which would involve irreparable harm to a unique area of international scientific importance, fails to have regard to the proper long-term planning for the water requirements of the area, and is contrary to the declared advice of the Nature Conservancy and the National Parks Commission.
This Amendment seeks to reject the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill. It is a Bill which would authorise the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board to construct a river regulating reservoir in the area which is know as Cow Green. My hon. Friends and myself are asking the House to reject this Bill for three specific reasons.
The first is that if this reservoir is constructed it will destroy a unique area of international scientific importance. Secondly, this crisis has only arisen, together with the danger it brings to this unique area, because of the lack of long-term planning for the water resources and needs of the area. The Bill is contrary to the advice of the Nature Conservancy and of the National Parks Commission.
In asking the House to reject this Bill, I am not asking it to do something which has never been done before. In one case the House threw out the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill after it had been to a Committee. I also want to make it clear that there is no reflection at all on the Committee which did such a thorough job of work on this Bill. The point is that the Committee had only a limited amount of evidence available. Since the Committee found the Long Title of the Bill proved, most disturbing geological evidence has come to light. There is a need for further exploratory borings in the field above Cow Green, and there

is the problem which only came up in the last day of Committee—and this is what is so disturbing—of the whole question of grouting and the damage that this will cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) will deal in detail with this point if he should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Another reason why I am asking the House to reject this Bill is quite simply because we have this unique feature of one hon. Member of this Committee, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, who has sat through the Committee and heard all the evidence and who has now signed the Amendment asking the House to reject the Bill. There is no doubt that the site is unique from a botanical and nature conservancy point of view. The site was recommended as a special conservation area by the Wild Life Conservation Special Committee in Cmnd. 7122. It is true that in the early stages of the negotiations over this Bill the Nature Conservancy had hoped to make some sort of compromise with the promoters. That hope was based on a false understanding of what the Bill would involve. There is no doubt that this reservoir, if it goes ahead, will destroy a complex community of plants, and whatever may be said there are no similar communities in the Western world at the moment.
This community is quite irreplaceable, and every botanist in the United Kingdom and in Europe subscribes to this view. It was proved, and put in a letter to The Times, signed by Peter Scott, at the beginning of this controversy. The Senior Scientific Officer at Kew said that this Bill, if it went through, was:
An act of scientific vandalism, unparalleled since the scientific conservation movement began.
The implications of Teesdale go far wider. If a highly developed and sophisticated country such as Great Britain is seen to act in this way, what an example we are setting to the underdeveloped countries.
Properly planned conservation and the proper use of natural resources is desperately important to them. If the Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference on the Countryside in 1970 means anything, it means that Teesdale must be saved. Perhaps it would be unfair to


comment that I was on that Study Conference, and the chairman of my working party who said that greater protection was needed for sites of special scientific interest was none other than Lord Beeching. It is quite true that Imperial Chemical Industries have offered £100,000 to make an extra programme of crash scientific research on this site. This means nothing because research done today can be out of date in the next century.
We had the problem in this House when we could not prove a particular disease because the only evidence was research done on it in 1881. There is a possibility that if the research continues on this site we shall add very considerably to our knowledge of what the flora and fauna of this country were like in the past 10,000 and 15,000 years. The House may say that if this is such an important site, why was it not in the National Nature Reserve; why is it only scheduled as an S.S.S.I.? The original intention of the Water Board was not to come back for a Further area of land until 1983. I contend that the Nature Conservancy was quite in order in thinking that the site which was scheduled as an S.S.S.I. and not in the nature reserve had sufficient protection.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on the Front Bench makes an intervention in this debate he will give some encouragement to the naturalists and botanists by assuring us that when our party is in power we will take action to strengthen protection under the S.S.S.I. agreements. I know that it will be said that this is only a small area—20 acres out of 170 acres which are to be flooded. But it is the most important bit. My hon. Friends will seek to show from the evidence given to the Committee that a reservoir in the area will change the whole environment of the valley. One of the difficulties in the Bill, which I think was faced by the Committee, is that scientists are very bad at giving evidence to Parliamentary Committees. They will not say what they think will happen, they will only say what will happen if it has been proved. Most of us who are not exact scientists know that if one puts a reservoir in an area one changes the whole botanical aspects of the area. One has only to look at existing reservoirs

to see that that has happened. Having said that about the scientists and botanists, I would like to place on record my endless admiration and the admiration of my hon. and right hon. Friends for the magnificent work done by the small Botanical Society of the British Isles in bringing this Bill before the House—in taking on the Goliath of I.C.I. on this important issue.
I said earlier that the situation would not have arisen had there been proper long-term planning for the needs of the area. This point was made, interestingly and well, today in the leading article of The Guardian. I was a member of the Private Bill Committee which in 1959 allowed the Baldor Head Scheme to go ahead on the firm understanding that the water board had stated its requirements as far ahead as 1983. In fact, it now appears that the water board has grossly under-estimated its requirements. This unsatisfactory solution arises because of the financial arrangements under which this water board works. The consumers pay a substantial sum towards the capital costs of any new works. If the board plans realistically for the future, then the capital costs are going to be a great deal higher. It is significant that in Day 4 of the evidence before the Committee, on page 68, it came out that pays 1s. 1d. per 1,000 gallons for its water against a national average of 3s. If this scheme were to go ahead—and I trust it is not going to—the figures produced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Water Resources Board, as against the water board, make clear that it will only meet the estimated demand in Teesdale from four to ten years from completion; and it will still be necessary to face up to the long-term needs of this area.
The House should look for a moment at the alternative possibilities. From the Nature Conservancy point of view—and without getting involved in the argument about the use of good arable farmland—may I say straight away that a reservoir further up the river, higher in Teesdale, would be quite acceptable and the Nature Conservancy would be prepared to allow some of the Moorhouse Nature Reserve to be used in exchange for saving this important site. We cannot take seriously the argument about the costs in the promoters' case, because they do not know


what the true cost will be, what the true geology will be found to be, or what the cost of grouting will be.
The House must also face the fact that in this country we have a great interest in the conservation movement. May I say, representing an agricultural constituency, one may find reasons for having to put nature conservancy interests and the interests of others living in towns ahead of the agricultural industry's interests in the next few years. This was brought home to me in my constituency when agriculture destroyed Waddingham Common, one of the most important sites in that part of Lincolnshire.
As a countryman and as one with a deep interest in the subject and a love of nature, can I say to the House simply that this is the most important conservation issue that has ever come before the House of Commons, ever since this House recognised that conservation was important and hon. Members opposite passed the National Parks Act in 1949. If a stand is not taken on this issue no single other area in the country is safe. If we do not reject this Bill tonight we shall be setting an appalling precedent for the rest of the countryside and I sincerely hope the House will reject it.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I must say straight away that I feel that our procedural arrangements are wrong. It would be much more satisfactory if we debated a Bill in the House before it was sent upstairs for the Select Committee to consider. Then at least the promoters of the Bill, if it were defeated in the House of Commons, would not have to go to the considerable expense and time of putting their evidence before a Select Committee. Whether we are in favour of or opposed to a Bill, I believe most hon. Members would agree with that.
I had hoped originally that I should not have to get heavily involved one way or the other with regard to this Bill, because over the years I have a large number of problems in my constituency with the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board. But I felt that the arguments for and against the Bill were so strong and were involving my constituency so heavily that

I would have to speak in support of the Bill.
We must bear all the problems and alternatives in mind when we consider this Bill this evening. My main fear, if the Cow Green reservoir scheme is defeated, is that the possible alternative of a reservoir at Middleton would have a very serious effect on many of my constituents who farm in that area.
During the inquiry by the Select Committee and in the House this evening criticism has been made of Imperial Chemical Industries for not recognising much earlier the need for a substantial increase in its water requirements. When the last Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill came before the House it was strongly pointed out by the Select Committee that future plans for reservoirs in the area would not be considered favourably by Parliament.
Since then there has been tremendous expansion on Tees-side. The I.C.I. new steam reforming process for the conversion of naptha into ammonia and fertilisers, the substantial increase in demand for man-made fibres with the potentialities for export, new types of fertiliser and major developments in the plastics industry, with other advances in chemical technology have led to a substantial increase in the demand for water.
I.C.I. has asked the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board to supply an additional 25 million gallons of water a day by 1970 and another 10 million gallons of water are required by Dorman Long, the Shell Refinery Company, Industrial Estates Management and domestic consumers. I.C.I. has already launched into a substantial development programme which will produce many more jobs on Tees-side, and there is no doubt that, if the organisation is to complete its development programme, a new reservoir will have to be constructed in the area. When one remembers that the Hailsham Plan was largely responsible for encouraging I.C.I. to extend its development programme on Tees-side, and bearing in mind the high unemployment figures we had not many years ago in this area, we must try to do everything possible to continue industrial expansion on Tees-side.
There are three possible alternatives. First, there is the reservoir at Upper


Cow Green which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) mentioned. As he rightly says, this area has not as yet been surveyed, but one of the problems facing industry on Tees-side is the need that will exist for water in the early 1970s. If the Upper Cow Green project was to be pursued it would probably take another three years before the reservoir was developed. No survey has yet been done. I would cost in the region of an additional £5 million. Also, it should be remembered that Upper Cow Green would probably be capable of holding as a reservoir and supplying only 27 million gallons as day, as against the 35 million gallons a day which will be possible at Cow Green. Then there is the third suggestion of a reservoir at Middleton-in-Teesdale. This would destroy many agricultural holdings in the area and certainly would have a harmful effect on the town of Middleton.
If I may refer to the evidence given to the Committee by the County Secretary of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Stan Jones, he pointed out that the area of land at Cow Green supports only about 500 sheep for summer grazing, whereas the site at Middleton-in-Teesdale would flood about 1,300 acres of land, 200 acres of pasture and about 1,100 acres of first-class meadow-land. This would also affect the grazing rights on about 500 more acres, because the lowland helps to keep during the winter the flocks that run on the moors higher up the dale. This would affect 39 holdings, 20 of which would be totally submerged; and about 30 farmers would lose their livelihood. The compensation for tenant farmers which the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board made in respect of Balderhead in the same district was inadequate to get many of the people affected reinstated in farming. Certainly the position of tenant farmers was quite hopeless.
Therefore, the other alternative is bore holes. The reports suggest that the total amount of water available by the early 1970s through bore holes would he no more than 6 million gallons a day. Therefore, I think that we have to rule that out.
I know the area fairly well and I feel that the reservoir would not spoil the natural beauty of the area. But, at the same time—and this is most unfortunate—there is the problem of the flora in

the Cow Green area. What my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough did not point out was that of the 300 acres around the Widdybank area, where one finds the viola rupestris, only 17 will be affected. I.C.I. has offered £100,000 to the Nature Conservancy which could do a great deal of help the research work in the area.

Sir David Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that the purpose of that £100,000 would be merely to study the existing vegetation before it was flooded.

Mr. Kitson: I was pointing out that only 17 out of 300 acres where there is flora are to be flooded. The whole area is not to be flooded and the whole flora structure is not to be lost.
Botanists all over the world consider this area to be unique. However, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough to the evidence given by Dr. Arthur Stoker Thomas, who is a Fellow of the Institute of Biology, because he did not seem to hold these views when I heard his evidence. I.C.I. employs 31,000 people on Tees-side, and, with this substantial development programme under construction, there is no doubt that a reservoir will have to be provided from one of these three possibilities
The water board is to take the water from the reservoir down the Tees to Croft where it is intended to put a weir across the river. This was the subject of an inquiry at Northallerton only yesterday. I hope that we shall have assurances from the Government that the flow of water between Croft and Low Worsall will not be substantially reduced. I understand that it is the river board's intention to instruct the water board to allow a flow of 15 million gallons a day over this weir. I hope that the Northumbrian River Authority will determine a minimum acceptable flow for this stretch of the river and take all possible steps to improve it.
To sum up, we have to weigh up the evidence given to the Committee. If industrial expansion on Tees-side is to go ahead, a reservoir in the area is essential. I hope that hon. Members, when they vote tonight, will bear in mind that if the Bill is rejected probably 40 or 50 of my constituents will lose their farming jobs in the next five years.
Two other points have been raised about the Cow Green reservoir. It may not be fully appreciated that the water board, through its consulting engineer, made a very early approach in 1964 to the Nature Conservancy. The consultant discussed 17 sites with the Conservancy in order to get its reaction to them. The then director of the Nature Conservancy wrote in a letter on 23rd October, 1964, to the consultant that the Cow Green site would be most unlikely to be objected to by the Nature Conservancy. Since then, the opposition to the Bill has built up.
Another point which is being discussed is the additional borings which have been taken at Cow Green. This has been done by the promoters to refute evidence and criticism that there is the possibility of this area not being suitable for a reservoir. These additional borings have been sunk to prove their point and to demonstrate that the geological construction of the area is suitable for a reservoir.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Would not my hon. Friend agree, however, that additional borings are still being made because the board's engineers are not satisfied with their previous evidence? In other words, the evidence given to the Committee was not complete.

Mr. Kitson: This is not the information which I have had from them. These additional five borings have been made to allay any suspicions voiced during the inquiry.
Although I have not been a great friend of the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board, I hope that the House will not reject its Bill.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have a particular interest in this area because my family origins lie in it. Teesdale, the name of the river valley, is my mother's maiden name and my middle name. Therefore, I feel that I should speak in the debate.
County Durham is a naturally very beautiful county, but, alas, the eastern half of it has been ruined in appearance by two centuries of industrial development and spoliation. However, the west of the county remains a singularly

beautiful area of wild country of very great amenity value, not least to those who live in the eastern industrial half of the county. Much of the county is part of a development area and the needs of industry must be paramount.
No one wishes to deny that the development of I.C.I. is vital to the industrial needs of the area. The expansion of I.C.I. will take up at least some of the labour surplus created in the area by the decline of old industries. I am sure that no one in the House would like to see unnecessary obstacles placed in the way of the further development of I.C.I. at Billingham. However, if the area is to be redeveloped industrially, we should this time be most careful and ensure that all of the natural amenities of the area are preserved.
Many Members on both sides have spoken inside and outside the House, and not least in the last two election campaigns, of the necessity of looking to the quality of life rather than simply material values. Upper Teesdale is one of the most important relaxation and recreational areas for the inhabitants of the Lower Tees Valley and the Durham coal mining area.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with the Pennine Way. We should also remember Cauldron Snout, immediately below the area known as Cow Green, which is one of the most magnificent cataracts in the country. Many a time have I walked past the Cauldron Snout, in the area popularly known as High Cup Nick. To me, Cow Green is an unfamiliar name, as it would be to local residents. I would like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that the flow of water over Cauldron Snout and over High Force, a singularly superb waterfall, will not be affected materially by the development proposed at Cow Green. If it is to be materially affected, I feel that I cannot vote for the Bill.

Mr. James Tinn: I believe that I can offer my hon. Friend the precise assurance that he is seeking. This is a reservoir which will conserve the water and regulate its flow, so that the water which is abstracted on behalf of industry will be removed further down the river, below both waterfalls that he has mentioned. From the scenic point of view, it will have the beneficial effect of


ensuring a more regular flow in dry seasons as well as in wet.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. At times of heavy rainfall I find the flow of water over High Force singularly magnificent. If we have a regulated flow of water, I suppose that we shall never see that again, so we are bound to lose something.
I turn briefly to the botanical interest of the area. I gather that here we have some unique plant communities; indeed, I am told that they are ice-age survivals, and perhaps that is not surprising in view of the climate of the area. But I would urge the House to remember that the study of our environment has unforeseeable consequences. It is not merely a question of the value in this day and age, but in future days as well. That is something which we should not forget. We do not know what the consequences of studies might have for human betterment, and for scientific and, ultimately, industrial potential, too. I am not satisfied by the statement in the document issued by the promoters of the Bill, in paragraph 17 of which they say:
The particular assemblage of plants found growing in part of the reservoir site may well be different in some degree from every other assemblage of plants—it would be surprising if this were not so—botanical witnesses … could not say that comparable assemblages of plants did not appear elsewhere in Upper Teesdale.
That is a singularly absurd statement. Obviously they could not say that comparable assemblages of plants did not appear elsewhere in Upper Teesdale or elsewhere in the country. But we must remember that it is possible that the area which will be drowned, albeit it is part of a larger area which is of botanical interest, may contain unique assemblages of plants, and we shall lose the opportunity of studying them afresh for ever.
I want now to say a word about the problem of water supplies in general as it is affected by the Bill. General concern has been shown about the problem of national water supplies for a number of years. The party to which I belong promised in the election before last that one of the items in our programme would be the nationalisation of water supplies. I hope that that may still be an item in the programme because, in my view, it should have been done a long time ago.
What we are faced with in the Bill and what we have been faced with as a nation and will be faced with increasingly over the next ten or fifteen years is the piecemeal encroachment on areas of amenity value and on agricultural land because of our failure to plan our water supplies in the long term.
If I might refer again to the document issued by the promoters of the Bill, I find this statement in paragraph 4:
In their report to the Minister the Water Resources Board stated that they could see no possibility of obtaining the necessary additional supplies from outside the catchment area of the River Tees in time to meet the demand and that there was no practical possibility of desalination solving the problem in time.
We are all fighting a losing battle. In present circumstances, we are running hard in order to catch up.
That is the basis of the problem which we face with the Bill. In the long term, we may find that this sort of policy is also more expensive. Rather than give in to the policy of piecemeal encroachment which we find in the Bill, I would hope that, as a nation, we could resolve to set up a national water supply with a national grid and the development of large sea reservoirs such as Morecambe Bay and The Wash, thereby ensuring as well that the cost of conserving the nation's water supplies will be more evenly distributed over the whole population than is possible at present, with a plethora of local water boards levying local water rates.
I feel that the Bill represents what I can only refer to as a very bad principle on which to solve the problem of our national water supplies in the long term.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: It is nice to learn that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) is appreciative of Durham's beauty and that he originates from that delightful county. I cannot claim to do that, because I am a Northumbrian, but I claim to know a bit about the area in general, which is why I presume to take part in the debate.
In the course of what I have to say, I should like to take up, to a degree, the hon. Member's point about what he calls piecemeal encroachment. I should make it clear from the outset that I support the Bill. For once, I am at variance with


my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball), for whom I have considerable respect.

Dame Irene Ward: (Tynemouth): And Tynemouth.

Mr. Elliott: I must confess that learning that I am at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) does not make my task any easier. Again, I would suggest that it is an unusual circumstance.
Like most hon. Members present for this debate, I am trying to understand the conservancy case, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and others who have supported his Amendment, I want to appreciate it.
The case which I wish to put, if I may be presumptuous enough to suggest it, is the practical case for the Bill. My entire thinking on the Bill is dominated by that which has dominated my thinking and activities since I first entered the House some nine years ago as Member of Parliament for a constituency in the North-East of England. Those of us who have been in the House for some time as Members for the North-East of England, no matter where our constituencies may be, have been fully aware during the past decade that our major problem in the North-East is that of its continuing prosperity and its continuing employment. The Bill has a very big effect on the future employment of people in the North-East.
The problems of the North-East can be pinpointed quite easily. Our two major industries in the past decade, coal mining and shipbuilding, have been declining. The future picture of prosperity has not always been rosy and still is not rosy, for that matter, and some of us will be attempting to catch the eye of the Chair on Tuesday, of next week when we debate the problems of development areas.
Although the picture in the North-East is much brighter than it was a few years ago, problems still remain. During the past nine years there have been bright parts of the picture. There have been pieces of the picture which have given considerable encouragement. No part of the north-eastern area of the country has given us in this House more encouragement than Tees-side, because the development of a number of industrial concerns

there has, to say the least, been most encouraging.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) listed a number of industries which we are delighted to have in that area, but one must refer particularly to I.C.I. On its Billingham site alone, which covers 1,000 acres, 17,000 people are employed. Employment has been my major concern since I came into this House nine years ago. The capital involved at Billingham is £190 million, and the all-important point is that it is proposed to increase this figure to £223 million by 1970. I.C.I.'s Wilton site consists of 700 acres, and 14,000 people are employed there. The capital employed in the refinery at Wilton amounts to £206 million, and it is proposed to increase this to £330 million by 1970. We must remember, too, that on Tees-side I.C.I. employs 7,000 people in constructional work alone.
Production from I.C.I. factories amounted to £226 million in 1965, and will rise to £404 million if I.C.I.'s development plans continue. We have heard a great deal in this Chamber during the past two days about the importance of exports. I.C.I.'s exports amounted to £54 million in 1965, and it is estimated that if the company's development plans can be continued, its exports will reach £98 million by 1970.
I make no apology for quoting those figures, because, as I see it, they support the case for the Bill in that these developments which I.C.I. and other industries propose can continue only if they are assured of a reasonable addition to their water supplies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend has made an impressive recital of the enormous resources of I.C.I. Does he not think it strange that a company with such enormous resources should be set back and unable to continue its business because of the demand to save a few acres of lichens and dandelions?

Mr. Elliott: I can only ask my hon. Friend to be patient, and I hope that I shall answer his point. Perhaps I might now begin to do so. As a Member for the North-East, I know that I.C.I. and other industrialists have been encouraged to expand their production in that area. I am aware that these essential development plans, in an area where our basic


industry has declined, and declined most rapidly and dangerously, are within the Hailsham thinking, or, if I may put it this way, are very much within the Hail-sham concept of what was necessary for the North-East.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have done their best to bring employment to the North-East. Each of us has been responsible for encouraging industry and industrialists to expand there. Certainly from Hailsham onwards we have been responsible for encouraging not to go elsewhere, as it could have done, with the enormous development which it now proposes in the North East. Consequently, I am anxious, and see it as my clear duty in terms of what I have advocated in the past, to make sure as far as I can that the physical requirements are at hand to allow for this considerable development.
My knowledge of the proposed development leads me to the view that if there were a drought in the '70s, with this development going on, and without additional water to hand, it could have a disastrous effect on our national trade figures and would have an appalling effect on employment in that area.
A great deal has been said about alternatives, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, outlined them rather well. I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, so I shall touch on them only briefly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough suggested that an accurate assessment had not been made of the cost of the construction of a reservoir at Cow Green. An estimate has been made with regard to Upper Cow Green, and it is reasonably established, as far as I am concerned from such evidence as I have to hand, that the Upper Cow Green site would cost £5 million more, but what is so much more important is that it will take at least three years longer to construct, and our industry in the North-East cannot afford to wait that long.
Another alternative is desalination. Figures given to me—and I have no reason to doubt them—show that the cost would be about 10s. per 1,000 gallons. I must, in all fairness, say that it is estimated that that figure could be reduced to 5s. per 1,000 gallons by 1980,

but this compares—and in these days of competitive industry one must always make this comparison—with 1s. per 1,000 gallons which will be the cost of getting water from the proposed new reservoir.
I feel that I do not need to enlarge on the Middleton proposal, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks is well aware of the nature of the agricultural land in varying parts of Yorkshire. It would mean using excellent farmland.
Finally, what is the botanists' case? Those who see this Bill as essential have tried to understand it. We have read everything that has been sent to us, and we have received excellent letters from people who feel strongly about the possibility of this, from a botanists' point of view, valuable area being flooded. As I see it from such evidence as is to hand, there was full consultation with the Nature Conservancy at an early stage in the thinking on this proposal. There was a nine-month investigation of Cow Green, which cost £50,000. The Bill—it is before us in its amended form—was considered in Committee upstairs for 13 days. I suggest that this is evidence enough that those who oppose the Bill have had ample opportunity to voice their opposition to it.
The fact is that 20 acres of botanical interest out of 5,000 acres of similar if not identical land are involved, and I believe that it is somewhat unfair for my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough to suggest that the money offered by I.C.I. for research means nothing. I find this difficult to understand. A considerable sum of money has been offered, and even if this means carrying out the research before the area is flooded, surely if it is carried out thoroughly it can be of great service to scientists and botanists in the future.
I conclude by adding my appeal to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks for the progress of this Bill. I believe that it is an essential Measure for the future employment of people in the North-East and the future prosperity of that area.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The question of a Private Bill is something to be dealt with with the deepest


suspicion. I have a natural disinclination to support Private Bills. I have a tendency to oppose them, and in this Parliament I have already opposed one that affected my constituency. On that occasion I felt that I had made some improvements to the Bill. I am grateful for the co-operation that my constituency gained from Members in the House and in Committee upstairs, and to some extent I am in a forgiving sort of mood tonight.
I want to see if I can speak to this Bill bearing in mind the interests of the North-East and the arguments both for the Bill and against it. Whatever opinions we may have about Private Bills much of my personal dislike concerns their nineteenth century origins, especially in connection with vested interests, railway and the like. I feel that there is an increasingly less important place for them within the modern context in which we are living.
Having said that I want to be fair to the Bill I must say at once that I am rather surprised to find that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) finds in it—no doubt in a degree of haste or in a state of anxiety—some Hailsham thinking. I felt that there was a little opportunism being exercised, because I could not see how this Hailsham thinking sprang from the hon. Member in the light of the assessment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on the issue of dandelions and daisies. I hope that having made the point we shall have an end first to nonsense and, secondly, to assessments about the Bill which are quite unrelated to the Hailsham thinking.

Mr. Kitson: Is it not a fact that I.C.I. was persuaded to put a substantial amount of capital investment into this area instead of going to one or two other areas where there would have been an adequate water supply? Was not this decision based very much on the recommendations of the Hailsham Plan—in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott)?

Mr. Leadbitter: I find this in my constituency—members of the community and people in responsible positions with a spot of hindthinking see relationships between certain progress made on the industrial front and the Hailsham Report.
Whatever else can be said about the Hailsham Report, it was a very belated document, and if anyone reads the record during the past few years he will see that Labour Members representing North-East constituencies have been pressing for some action for a long time. My estimation of that Report has not altered for the past two or three years. I still believe that it was an account of what had not been done and that it is therefore only incidental to the efforts of all the public representatives in the northern region to bring about the resuscitation of the economy. Their efforts merely coincided with the White Paper.
I want to refer to one point in that White Paper. It does not propose anything. It does not refer to the historical background of the region. It merely states the simple fact that in this region—Tees-side and the surrounding area—it is expected that the population will grow from 545,000 in 1962 to 675,000 in 1981. That is an important piece of information, because, related with the employment trends in this area we see an increasing need for the means to carry on industrial progress. In 1960 the number of people employed on Teesside was 173,029 and in 1965 it was 178,861. If, even in general terms, we attempt to project that increasing employment against the background of the projected population growth, between now and 1981 we can see that whatever agreements or understandings might have existed between Hailsham and I.C.I. the boom in industrial growth is there. It is real, and it must be catered for. Anyone opposing the Bill is not talking sense.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North—whose personal interest in the region is not to be refuted and certainly not to be challenged, and whose contribution is appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House—said that the North of England is fully aware of its continuing prosperity and importance. That was the most important contribution he made to the debate, expressing a consistent, purposeful plan to support the region at all costs as a North of England constituency and Parliamentary Member. I support and encourage that kind of language from wherever it comes. We must therefore accept that in this region the primary thing at this stage is employment.
I want to refer to the whole region, including Hartlepools, the Middlesbrough area, and Tees-side in general. During the years in which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North and others in the region were fighting for work—

Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order. Is not my hon. Friend straying somewhat from the point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I have been listening to what the hon. Member is saying. If he strays outside order I shall call him up.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am merely carrying on the theme introduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North. We were passing through a very dark tunnel and our hopes of reaching the end were a little dismal. We could not see the light. There were depressing economic circumstances, with increasing levels of unemployment and the incomprehensible indifference of those in power to bring these conditions to an end. I think that the preservation of human life with all its scientific interests was far more important than the scientific interests of other things.
I do not say that other things were unimportant but their importance had an evaluation which was related in some way to the extent to which we, as a society, judged each other. In other words, I made the point then, and I make it now, that we cannot evaluate the scientific interests of things outside ourselves unless we ourselves in society have cultivated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is now going rather wide of the subject. I must ask him to relate his observations to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am relating the conditions, in the sense that when opponents of the Bill attempt to defeat it on premises which have been questioned upstairs and valuations which are very much exaggerated, it is important to stress the point that in my region we cannot evaluate beauty and the scientific interests of flora until we have the social conditions for all those who live there to enjoy it. That is the true evaluation of the area.
I am making the point that human kind was predominant in my thinking at that

time and I was strongly opposed then, as I am now, to any hypocrisy which gives lip service to values, but which fosters notions and attitudes which are antagonistic to the real values in society. But now we have got through this dark tunnel and the North-East is now beginning to look brighter. There is work, people are moving about and the population is able to enjoy the area in question—an area in which I live and where I have worked, where I go for my own leisure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his observations to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Leadbitter: Having made the point that we have reached the stage where things are better in this region, it is right that, in considering the Bill, we should say to those who determined this Bill and sought to promote it that their concern is not only with the matters which I have raised but with the social and economic life of the region, and that they should therefore, in consequence, look very seriously and deeply into all the matters which the objectors have hitherto raised.
It is therefore right that, in support of the Bill, I should claim that I have looked at some of these objections. I notice that the Botanical Society has outlined in a memorandum to hon. Members the purposes of the Bill. They refer to the area and the plant community life which in some way has its origins in the Ice Age. They also refer to a consultant who makes the comment that the intrusion of something man-made into this splendid landscape would be wrong and would do great damage. It refers to the particular demand of an industrialist.
In the question of this industrialist, I.C.I. are spending about £1 million per day on new processes. This, in itself, creates difficulties of demand for water. It is very difficult to assess the demands for water when a user of water of this size is involved, and there is an experiment of this magnitude in terms of capital cost. No one can claim as an argument, as an hon. Member opposite did, that the Board has failed in not assessing the demand properly. It is impossible to do so.
The memorandum goes on to say that the past history of the Board is such that actual demand over a prolonged period outstrips the estimated demand for water.
I repeat this point only in order to make out that, to my knowledge, no water board, however successful has been able to estimate the demand for water. If there is anything wrong in the Bill at all it is that the water supply of the country is not really organised and administered properly to satisfy the needs of the nation.
However, accepting the situation as it is, it is not a valid argument to say that the board has not been successful in recent history in assessing the demand of the area. It is not unusual; this is understandable. It is because of this circumstance that the board has had to use this instrument of a Private Bill in order to get this kind of solution to a problem which is most pressing in the area.
Of course, the memorandum finally refers to a short term requirement and long term possibilities of the irreparable damage to unique vegetational features. In The Times on 27th July, a writer indicated some concern about this question of unique vegetational features. He wrote that a previous letter in The Times:
refers three times to the destruction of the area which the creation of the Reservoir will entail. The area of 770 acres to be submerged contains no human habitation. The greater part, as usual, is used only for rough sheep grazing. Seventeen acres only are admittedly of special botanical interest, but the flowers and plants found there are not, as I understand it, unique in the sense that they cannot be found elsewhere. Indeed, they occur in the same neighbourhood but outside the limits of the proposed reservoir.
It is interesting to notice that on 23rd October, 1964, a letter written by the Director-General of the Nature Conservancy to Mr. Kennard on behalf of the board indicated a lapse in opposition. At the time that the letter was written, the proposed top water level for the reservoir was about 1,600 ft., and this was known to the Nature Conservancy. The top water level proposed in the Bill is 1,603 ft. above ordnance datum. It was therefore necessary to raise the level by about 3 ft. This is the reason for it: in order that the dam can be moved further back from the top of Caldron Snout in the interests of amenity.
This is only one of a number of examples by the water board to meet the objections of botanists, naturalists and others, who are scientifically interested

in the area. The Board went to this extent and the letter from the Nature Conservancy is of interest. I want to read only the first paragraph of it:
I was very glad to hear from you"—
that is, the Board—
on Tuesday about progress in your investigations and also to meet Mr. Hetherington. However troublesome it may be reconciling our respective interests in this way, it is far less difficult and more civilised than the alternative of developing projects unilaterally and then fighting them in the chaotic conditions of a public inquiry!
So the Nature Conservancy was saying to the water board that it appreciated the co-operation of the board and that it understood that it was a very important step forward to remove from the area of dispute the practice of unilateral action the kind of action which spoiled the northern region in the nineteenth century.
Hon. Members who speak in the House about pit and slag heaps are really talking about unilateral action by industrialists at a time when provisions were not available to support the interests of those who were scientifically inclined towards botanical matters in this area. A leading figure in the northern region wrote to The Times on 27th July:
The Bill if enacted will enable the regulating reservoir to be constructed to supply 35 million gallons of water per day for domestic and industrial purposes on Tees-side. The water will not be piped away from the reservoir, but will pass down the river to be abstracted at and below Darlington. The whole regime of the river will thus be improved.
A great deal of work has been done to consider alternative sites and to make them available to the water board, but the Cow Green site was found to be less costly than other ventures. The proposed site was marked out to avoid a despoliation of agricultural land, taking into account the interests of the Botanical Society, naturalists, nature lovers and people scientifically interested in the area.
On 12th July Professor Harper indicated the concern of the British Ecological Society, which means that we now have another organisation which is interested in the area. I mention this because the members of this society are men of great distinction whose authority and opinion in these matters are difficult to question. Concern was also expressed on the scientific side, when the members of this


Society stated why this unique area should be preserved. When I read the letter containing the view of the Ecological Society I could not, however, find any detailed argument about the types of plant and so on involved. Although there were no facts of that sort, I could only draw the assumption that this important Society was approching the subject as a matter of principle and was indicating its support for the objectors in the case.

Mr. Hawkins: As one who was a member of the Committee, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Ecological Society is wholeheartedly against this proposal and gave evidence against the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that its representatives gave extremely good reasons for taking that view. If I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I will develop this theme.

Mr. Leadbifter: I am not speaking in order to dispute what was said in Committee upstairs but merely to produce the evidence which is available to me. I was referring to a letter in The Times. Having considered all the evidence, as well as the priorities which should be maintained in the area, I am satisfied that the case which has been made out by the botanical interests and bodies associated with them—indeed by the objectors in general—has, I regret to say, been exaggerated.
Unless the Bill is passed and water is made available to this expanding firm—remembering the need of domestic users, which is rising with the growth in population—this area will suffer a serious loss. It has been estimated that, in the event of drought, one firm alone might lose £45 million worth of exports of water is not made available in the sort of quantities we are discussing. I hope that, these priorities having been considered, hon. Members will support the Bill, bearing in mind that those who live in the area are, nevertheless, sufficiently aware of the need to preserve the beauty of what is a wonderful regions.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is not the occasion when much time should be taken up by members of either Front Bench. We are discussing a Private Bill on which hon. Members must make up their minds without the assistance of the Whips of either side. I am sure, how-

ever, that the Minister will wish to give some advice to the House, and it is therefore right that I should comment on the matter from this side.
The House has an opportunity of debating this matter because a Private Bill was necessary since, in this case, certain common lands were involved and the Water Board wished to take them over. Thus, the Bill reaches the Floor of the House after being for 13 days in Committee. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), the Bill could have come before the House on Second Reading if anyone had objected at that stage. But, having gone through 13 days in Committee, I doubt whether any points of argument for or against it have failed to be put in that Committee.
However persuasive hon. Members may be in debating on the Floor of the House—and we have heard some very persuasive speeches today—the Committee appointed to consider the Bill heard the evidence first-hand. The House is grateful to those hon. Members of the Committee who sat for 13 days listening to this evidence and all the other arguments. Therefore, prima facie, the case is for the Bill when it comes back at Report stage in this way, and the burden is on those who object to it to prove their case.
Their argument is that the Committee itself was not unanimous, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has declared that he was not with his colleagues on that Committee in their decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has pointed out that the Committee did not have all the evidence before it which is available now. So, to some extent, the objectors to the Bill have justified bringing the Measure before the House today.
The debate is a little wider than procedural points concerning a private Bill and how it has been through its Committee stage and so on. The issue is, perhaps, wider than the Bill itself. It has been put as the preservation of human life being more important than the preservation of flora and fauna. That may be a somewhat exaggerated way of putting it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that there were


three reasons why the Bill should be rejected. He stated that if it were to become law it would, first, destroy a unique area of scientific importance; secondly, that it showed a lack of long-term planning; and, thirdly, that its content was contrary to the advice of the Nature Conservancy and the National Parks Commission.
He asked me whether the Opposition would support action to strengthen the protection of areas of international scientific importance. I can confidently give an assurance that from this side full support will always be given to action taken to strengthen the protection of these vital areas of international scientific interest and importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that this was perhaps the most important conservation matter that had come before the House for a very long time, while the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) expressed it as a consideration of qualities of life rather than the material values.
What, then, is the need for this reservoir? The promoters of the Bill have very clearly set out for us that the undertaking, Imperial Chemical Industries Limited requires additional supplies of water for very important purposes at the chemical works at Billing-ham and at Wilton, and the new refinery at North Tees. Further, and I do not think that this has been very much mentioned so far in this debate, it is not only a question of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited but of Dorman Long and Company Limited, the Shell Refining Company Limited and the Industrial Estates Management Committee of the Tees-side. On the other hand, does this important need of these industrial concerns outweigh irreparable damage to this area of unique botanical interest?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said that the major problem was the future prosperity and employment in North-East England. On the other hand, those who object to the Bill say that there are alternatives; that there is the Middleton area where a reservoir could be placed; that there is the Upper Cow Green area where, again, there is opportunity for a reservoir, and that investigations could be made of the quantities

of water that might be provided by means of bore holes.
I should think, though, without necessarily taking sides, that the advantage of the reservoir proposed by the Bill is very great as compared with the alternative sites. It uses an area of comparatively unimportant unproductive land, and only a small area of that, it is said, is of botanical importance. We are told that only 17 acres of some 300 acres of the scientifically important area will be submerged, but even 17 acres of an area which is of international fame is of importance, and should be protected if that is at all possible.
There is no doubt that a new water supply is necessary in order to continue the substantial expansion of industry in this area. Reference has been made to what is known as the Hailsham Plan. There is no doubt whatever that the intention of that plan for the North-East was the expansion of industry there, and my right hon. and learned Friend who devised that plan worked very hard to persuade I.C.I. to increase its investment. Had that undertaking not done so at that time, there would have been many fewer jobs in the area than there are now—indeed, there might have been greater unemployment had that firm not been persuaded to invest substantially in that region. At any rate—if, even on a Private Bill, I might make one political remark—we did not have to abandon the plan for the North-East as the present Government have had to abandon the National Plan. The plan for the North-East has gone ahead, and has provided substantial employment—

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: If the hon. Gentleman is to raise an issue like this, he should make it clear that we are stepping up our plans for the North-East and other development areas, to the great success and happiness of the people living there.

Mr. Page: Indeed, the present Government are developing, increasing, improving and implementing the Hailsham Plan. We are very glad that they are. Therefore, it is not, as one hon. Member opposite said, an account of what has not been done; it was an account of what should be done and is going to be done and not, as the National Plan


now is, an account of what is not going to be done.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): The hon. Member rather forgets that in this area—which is in my constituency—a particular part of Teesdale was left out of the development district. It has been put into the development district by the present Government and this reservoir is of great importance in providing a job carry-over.

Mr. Page: We were getting the results without making it a development area. We were getting the investment from I.C.I.

Mr. Boyden: I referred to Teesdale, not to Tees-side.

Mr. Page: At any rate I think we are agreed that I.C.I. is doing a good job by providing employment for 17,000 at Billingham and 14,000 at Wilton. The argument against that is that here is a very wealthy concern which has got the money to make other provision than to obtain a water supply from this area.

Dame Irene Ward: I come from the area, and what I want to know is whether my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) can deal with the technical details about alternatives to this site. We know all these arguments backwards. What we want to know is what is the appreciation of my hon. Friend, who represents the Opposition, of the alternative sites which have been offered? That is what we have to make up our minds about. I want the technical details, not all the flim-flam which anyone could give.

Mr. Page: I offer my hon. Friend the technical details given in 13 days in Committee. They certainly cannot be Given on the Floor of the House at this time. The alternatives are the Middleton Reservoir, the Upper Cow Green Reservoir, which was dealt with in considerable detail in Committee, and other possible alternatives, but in those cases—

Dame Irene Ward: Not every hon. Member sat on the Committee.

Mr. Page: —there would be more expense and they would take a longer time. I do not want to sit in judgment

on the question of which reservoir should he provided. Each individual hon. Member on a Private Bill of this sort has to make up his or her mind as to which way to vote. Frequently the decision is more satisfactory either way than when the Whips direct us into which Lobby to go. Undoubtedly there is a very grave problem and a very difficult issue, on the one hand to maintain the expansion of industry in the area and to ensure employment, and on the other hand not needlessly to throw away a most important asset of the country, the scientific knowledge which can be gained from this area and the enjoyment which can be given by the beauties of nature in this area.
These have to be set against the development. It is a difficult issue but with the decision of the Committee and the evidence taken by the Committee, hon. Members should be able to make up their minds on whether they support the Bill or wish to reject it.

8.39 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I do not think anyone in the House who thought twice would think that the Hail-sham Plan was worth while spending much time on, and I shall not spend any more time on it.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willey: No, I shall not. I have expressed a point of view which the hon. Member may not share, but I think it is the view of most people who have thought about the North-East. I intervene because I got the impression that on balance the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was in favour of the Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: Nobody knows what he thought.

Mr. Willey: I can only express the opinion that I thought on balance he was in favour of the Bill. As he said, this is Private Business. I am intervening without the automatic nod of approval from the Whips regardless of possession or lack of eloquence. I can only very briefly advise the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that the facts are available. They have been considered. They have been fairly well deployed this evening.
Like the hon. Member for Crosby—I think that I at any rate have this impression correctly—I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) and his colleagues have exhaustively considered the Bill upstairs for 13 days there is a predisposition to agree with them. They have had an opportunity of hearing the evidence first hand and forming a view on it. It does not commit the House, but it expresses a point of view to which we must pay very serious regard.
I could give my personal advice. I know the area very well. I had the great pleasure of opening the youth hostel at Langdon Beck when it was rebuilt after being burned down. I was very happy to do that because I had often stayed there. In company with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I have been on the High Cup Nick and walked up there. My own personal view would be that, if this were a choice between the Cow Green and the Upper Cow Green reservoir, I would prefer the present scheme. I do not like the prospect of the high concrete dam, although it is higher up the valley.
I also think—this is no more than a personal opinion—that from an amenity point of view this reservoir will be very attractive. We rather misleadingly talk about this as being a very remote area. With this attraction, it will bring to the Upper Tees Valley quite a number of people at the weekends from the Three River country—from the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear.
The main issue here is that this is an area of unique scientific interest which might be prejudiced or damaged by what the promoters of the Bill propose or seek permission to do. Therefore, what we have to consider is whether this can be avoided and whether it can be avoided at a cost commensurate with the scientific interest. These are the questions to which we must direct our minds.
This could be avoided if we had no reservoir. That would be—there is no need for me to re-state this—to the great prejudice of this important industrial development on Tees-side. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that it is not only I.C.I. It is Dorman Long and other industrial development on Tees-side.
The question is, then: is there an alternative?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Middleton.

Mr. Willey: My advice can only be based on the technical advice available to me. That is the advice of the Water Resources Board. After all, we have been asked this evening about technical advice. The advice available to me is that there is no alternative without a grave risk. There would be a grave risk if there were a succession of three or four dry summers. This is entirely a matter on which the House must express its judgment. I do not think that it is a risk which we can afford to run.
The second issue is whether it is an unavoidable risk. There is no question of possibly avoiding the risk over the three- or four-year period. Even if one had to run that risk, can one preserve this unique site undamaged, unprejudiced, at a cost commensurate with the scientific value?
We have discussed the cost. It would be about £3 million or £3½ million. This would be, to put it in another way, £12 million over 60 years. This is the issue upon which the House has to reach a decision.
I have considered this with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, having done so, we feel that the advice we must tender is that we should support the Bill. I do this with the greatest reluctance. Too often have we found ourselves in this kind of position. I was very pleased the other day to introduce the report of the Water Resources Board's Technical Committee on the South-East.
I realise that in this case the advice I have to give to the House is partial and hurried because we have been working against time and all that the board has been able to do is to give the best advice it could in the time. But it is now conducting a survey of the North, and I hope to get at any rate an interim report by the end of the year. In this way, I hope that we will get far greater knowledge so that we can make a much more effective and wider choice. What the House must feel is that the difficulty here is in the narrow limitations of choice.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has made the interesting remark that the northern committee is to report to the Board. He said that the information should be available by the end of this year. Would not that be the time to make this judgment?

Mr. Willey: This is urgent; we cannot delay it. The board is doing its best, but I cannot say that, by the end of the year, we shall have a report comparable with that of the one on the South-East. What I am anxious to do is to get the best information I can, if possible by the end of the year. We must see that we have proper information so that, in future, we find ourselves less and less forced into making ad hoc decisions. It is for that reason that, very reluctantly in the circumstances, I have to recommend the House to reject the petition and support the Bill.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources because he has made clear the problem we face in this issue. It is also right that a voice should be heard from these benches from the North-East objecting to the Bill, because I was, frankly, concerned about the case as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) developed it. It seemed to me that if one accepted his argument one would be saying, as so often in the past it was said in the North-East, that so long as we supported industrial development it did not matter what else happened. I thought that this was something we had woken up to reject.
I thought that we all now took the view that, if we were to get a healthy North-East, it must be a balanced development which took full account of the wide range of needs of the area and also the quality of life of its people, and not merely, terribly important as it is, of the industrial need. This is particularly important when we come to examine a case like this, where so many of us feel that alternatives could have been provided, at least had there been time to examine them properly.
We are continuously faced with this kind of problem. We are quite unfairly asked to judge on an issue virtually with

a pistol at our heads and being told, "Unless you agree, many people will be put out of work, or an important and vital and progressive industry will move out of the area". When that sort of argument is raised, it makes it almost impossible for us to reject it, however badly based it may be. Of course, I welcome enormously the news that we have some hope in future of getting a proper view of matters like this because of the work of the Water Resources Board. He has been the first to admit that the report so far available from the Water Resources Board is inadequate on any criteria which we would wish to use.
Like my right hon. Friend, I know the area well and in past years we have walked over it together. I have also had the experience of being a member of the Nature Conservancy, under whose auspices I have stayed on the site and met many of the scientists concerned with the area. I have also had the opportunity of serving on the recent Conference on the Countryside in 1970 and I am still concerned with carrying out some of the recommendations made by people with a wide range of backgrounds, and I have been concerned with trying to give greater emphasis to the long-term scientific considerations which I hope hon. Members will not brush aside.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, i do not reject the proposal in the Bill because of destruction of amenity in general terms. I do not object to stretches of water. Indeed, I have welcomed the introduction of reservoirs properly designed and carefully sited in many places. I very much welcome the Derwent Reservoir which is nearing completion, and I welcome enormously the recreational opportunities which will be provided. At one time, water engineers told us that we could not make use of water which was for drinking purposes, but nowadays we are growing up and realising that we can make use of water and that, provided authorities take proper precautions, there is no danger to communities. Thank heavens the obstructionism of some water authorities, like Manchester, is a thing of the past.
I also welcome the Tryweryn and other reservoirs which have been introduced in North Wales, although understanding the anxieties of some of my Welsh friends.
I think that water in these areas can provide an added amenity, and I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. I do not agree with him that necessarily the reservoir in this case would be better placed as is proposed in the Bill, as against higher up the valley. I am prepared to accept the higher dam. I do not think that it will necessarily destroy the area by being in that situation. There will still be great beauties and the water itself will provide beauty. I welcome the fact that the Nature Conservancy is prepared to support proposals for a reservoir constructed higher up the valley and flooding a good part of the area on which it has been working.
The issue, therefore, is one of time. Is it true that there is no other way of meeting the urgent demands than by having a reservoir sited as proposed? At this moment I am not satisfied that the promoters of the Bill have made their case adequately. I feel that there is a need at some time for hon. Members to take a stand against this kind of procedure. I hope that it is not unfair to I.C.I., but I suspect that at any rate there is a danger that if an application can be delayed sufficiently, there is more opporunity to get it through the House, because we are then confronted with this kind of pistol at our heads, which I deeply deplore. I hope that this kind of problem will not arise in future, because of the excellent and encouraging work of the Water Resources Board, which should help us to get a proper picture of our needs ahead. I repeat that my main anxiety, therefore, is not about the amenity problem. But I regard the scientific problem as very real and not one that can be brushed aside. Although the area involved is small, the long-term damage to the scientific interest will be real, and the House should bear this seriously in mind. Because of this, unless I can be convinced by any succeeding argument I propose to oppose the Bill.

8.55 p.m.

Sir David Renton: Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I have no predisposition against reservoirs as such. In fact, the largest artificial reservoir in this country is in my constituency, Graffham Water, made entirely by flooding farmland. With great respect to the Minister

and to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have spoken, I do not think that the true issue has yet been pinpointed in the debate. I do not think that we have the facts, in the first place, in spite of 13 days in Committee and in spite of test borings having taken place—[An HON. MEMBER: "And still going on."]—and, I am told, still going on, although my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) thinks that they have finished.

Mr. Kitson: No.

Sir D. Renton: But whether they are finished or not, we still do not know whether groutings will be necessary, and because we do not know whether groutings will be necessary we still do not know how much land surrounding the part to be flooded will have to be taken for the works. Because we do not know whether groutings will be necessary, we still do not know what the total cost will be and we still do not know when the work can begin. What a situation for Parliament to be in—trying to take a decision in circumstances like that.
The other respect in which the issue has not been pinpointed is this: the Minister, without detailing it, said that there was a matter of urgency here. He is probably a very unhappy man tonight; he should be after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
Let us consider what the matter of urgency is. The only information that we have and can pinpoint on this question of urgency is in paragraph 6 of the statement put out on behalf of the promoters, which, summarised, comes to this: that there is a risk, not a certainty, that by 1969 an additional 25 million gallons of water of acceptable quality will be needed. By way of amplification of that we are told, or threatened, that if we get a dry year like 1949 or 1959 I.C.I. may have the serious losses mentioned. We never have more than about three months of real drought weather in a dry year, and it is worth remembering that the South and South-East of England are generally worse affected than the North-East or North-West.
That is the nature of the risk. How shall we insure against it? That is the point that the House must decide by its vote tonight, and the question we have to decide is whether it can be reasonably


insured against in ways which are established as feasible, and which I shall mention in detail in a moment. Or are we going to insure against it by an irrevocable act of spoliation? This is what it comes to.
Once 770 acres of Cow Green have been flooded, they will be flooded for ever and this unique patch of vegetation of scientific value will have been lost to science forever. The Minister tells us that we cannot wait even till the autumn; we must take a decision tonight, on inadequate facts.

Mr. Willey: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be fair. I said hat the Water Resources Board hopes to issue an interim report by the end of the year. But there will be nothing in that report to affect this decision. We have the contemporary advice of the Water Resources Board.

Sir D. Renton: If Parliament takes a decision tonight, I hope that the Water Resources Board will certainly not try to reverse our decision. But I am suggesting that Parliament is not in a position to take a decision tonight because we have not the basic facts on which the promoters of the Bill are relying for the consent of Parliament to the works proposed. Moreover, I do not consider that the clearly feasible way of covering the accepted risk which I.C.I. has mentioned has yet been considered fully enough in this debate.
In the short term, this risk can be covered perfectly satisfactorily. I understand that one of the witnesses before the Select Committee said that not 6 million gallons as has been mentioned but possibly even 18 million gallons could be found from the bore holes between Darlington and the sea, and that these could he linked with one another and worked into the existing water supply system of the area. There is a potential supply of 6 to 18 million gallons. There is also an easily and, I believe, fairly quickly and fairly cheaply obtained scheme at Cloud Beck which would produce another 4 million gallons.
When we are thinking of alternatives, we have to measure the alternatives against the risk. I suggest that, rather than plunge into an irrevocable decision tonight, we should decide to meet that risk and the short-term needs by means

of these bore holes and the scheme at Cloud Beck, and give the Water Resources Board the opportunity for sound thinking such as it has displayed this week in its excellent report on the South East Study. This will avoid Parliament nibbling at this problem, as we should be doing if we gave consent to this Measure.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the account given by the director of the Water Resources Board in evidence to the Committee?

Sir D. Renton: I have not read all the evidence before the Committee, and I have not read that particular account, but I must point out that the Water Resources Board has moved a good way in its thinking in studies of the water supply problem of the East and South-East of England.
What I am asking—the Minister is asking it, too—is that the Water Resources Board should now have second thoughts, with the aid of its northern Committee, about the water resources of the North-East.

Mr. Kenyon: But he went up to 1980 before the Committee.

Sir D. Renton: What I am suggesting is in line with what the Government have asked, and all I am saying now is that we defer a decision, which would be an irrevocable one unless something is done wisely in another place, and that—

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the question of alternative supplies from boreholes was very thoroughly examined in Committee. There is nothing which can be called evidence on this score, because the yield from a borehole is pure conjecture until one has bored. But, weighing the professional opinion on one side and the other, the Committee came to the conclusion—or, rather, the evidence was given to the Committee—that this was not a practical proposition.

Sir D. Renton: Whatever element of conjecture there may be, I prefer the possibility that the boreholes will produce an answer to this problem to the total certainty that 770 acres at Cow Green will be lost for ever. That is my answer


to my hon. Friend. I am sorry, but I must speak bluntly and frankly.
Because of the shortage of time, I shall refrain from giving my views on the generalities of this matter. We are working ourselves into a hopeless position in which an ever-increasing population will be unable to enjoy our national heritage unless we are very careful. Tonight is a test case. Tonight we will be setting a precedent for our nation and possibly for others as well.
I have very great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Yorks, because already having one reservoir in my area I was threatened with another. That has been staved off, but I accept his difficulties over Middleton-in-Teesdale. I would like him to bear in mind that Middleton-in-Teesdale is part of a big, long-term solution and when the Water Resources Board has had further thought it may be that he can inspire them to avoid flooding even Middleton-in-Teesdale.
Meanwhile I would ask him and other hon. Members to remember that if one floods Cow Green it will be a question not merely of losing the 17 acres, which would be flooded anyway, it would mean that the unique vegetation on the sides of the banks of the reservoir, in addition to that beneath the waters, would be altered for ever. This is for the scientific reason—a limited knowledge of biology is enough for me to understand it, and I am sure that I can explain it to the House—that when there is a reservoir there is evaporation, especially in warm weather, and we are reliably informed by scientists who gave evidence to the Committee that the evaporation will affect the vegetation and the insect life on the banks of the reservoir by the raising of the temperature by an average of 2°C. That will mean that the plant life, which is of Ice Age origin, will not survive. What my hon. Friend said has to be considered in the light of that scientific fact.

Mr. Kitson: Is it unfair to say that the longer-term solution to this is a reservoir at Middleton-in-Teesdale. The Water Resources Board has suggested that water should be brought in from another area. This is what we all hope to see in future. Let us not suggest that the longer-term solution to this problem is a reservoir in Middleton-in-Teesdale.

Sir D. Renton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I was trying to give him some moral support in his view. He has expressed the point much better than I have. I hope that he will take comfort from the fact that the further thoughts that the Water Resources Board are going to have may make it possible to save Middleton-in-Teesdale as well. Meanwhile, what we have to do is to decide whether Cow Green should be flooded forever, and I say that the case for it has not been made out.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I come from the North-East, and I should like to commend previous speakers for the way in which they have dealt with this issue. It is a credit to the House that there has been such an attendance for and such great interest in a Bill of this kind. I agree with almost everything that has been said. I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). However, I will disagree with him in the Division Lobby.
I think that the real issue is fairly narrow. I deplore the presentation of the issue to Members through the post. I accept the real and genuine concern of those who have spoken tonight and who have written to me pleading that this very important and valuable area scientifically should be preserved. I could be overwhelmingly convinced by the statements which they have made and the evidence which I have had in isolation. All of us would like to leave the area as it is if we could. On the other hand, when we read about the real needs and priorities, again in isolation, the case is unanswerable. I do not regard the members of the water board as people who have promoted the Bill ruthlessly and without care or regard for the consequences. There is not the slightest doubt that great care has been taken. All of us agree on certain fundamental principles.
I have had long conversations about this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) who sits on the Government Front Bench. We both know the area very well. Only three years ago the town of Middleton and the surrounding areas were described as a "travel-to-work"


area where job prospects would decline and capital investment would be allowed only in very unusual circumstances. The outlook for the area was very grim.
We tend to be influenced by all sorts of pressures. I have lived in the area and seen family after family, young person after young person, unable to deploy their ability and talent in the area and having to move to the South of England and the Midlands. I get as many visitors as anybody, and hardly any come from my constituency. They are people who have come down here to live. When I see the conditions of life here, the most exciting place for me in London is King's Cross, because it is from there that I escape to the lovely North-East. If this is the quality of life in London, I am not anxious that it should be transferred to the North-East—heaven forbid.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about the quality of life. None of the social amenities will be destroyed. The beauty of the area will not be affected. One of the most delightful places in the North-East is the new Derwent reservoir and the surrounding district. I take people who come to my home to that area to show them the beauties of the district.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was not objecting to the proposal on amenity grounds. I was anxious about the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), who seemed to be arguing for industry in the North-East whatever the cost.

Mr. Armstrong: I go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on that matter. I am very concerned about what I call the depression complex that has lingered so long among so many of our people. When we see families forced to leave the area in order to find work, our minds tend to become concentrated.
This is a matter of judgment and opinion. I would not dare to be dogmatic and say that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who spoke with such persuasion and deep feeling, is wrong and that I am right. I do not know. When the House divides, each of us has to make a judgment. I was impressed by both Front Bench speeches which tried to spotlight the arguments for those of us who would

like to preserve what is there because of its value and who have a great understanding of the human problem in the area.
I do not think that we can discount, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to, what has happened in 13 days of Committee. To say that we have not had the facts is a bit unkind. Those of us who have read the minutes of proceedings can see that it was presented and sifted very carefully. We have to make a judgment on that evidence.
The determining factor for me is that if the Bill were defeated, industrial development on Tees-side would be impeded and delayed. I do not think that he should have industry at any price. At the same time, I know what the denial of freedom to work means to young folk. Many of us have had the experience of talking to young men and women who regard leaving school as the very mark of adulthood. When they seek employment to earn their living and it is denied to them, I cannot think of any more inhibiting human factor.
On balance, I believe that the circumstances justify support for the Bill. I am concerned about the very easy way in which we have encroached on valuable land. It has gone on far too long, and in that context I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Land and Natural Resources, who happens to be my own Member of Parliament.
We are presented here with a decision which must be made now. If we throw out the Bill, we shall impede very necessary industrial development in an area which needs it so much. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members saying "No". That is my judgment. They may have other opinions. It is because of that and knowing what it means to people in the area who have suffered all too long, that we should approve the Bill. We have heard a good deal of defence by its opponents, who choose to live a long way from the area. However, it is a very popular area. It contributes greatly to the quality of life of our people. I estimate that 99 per cent. of those who have visited the area, enjoyed the amenities and walked over it were quite unaware of its scientific value until this case came before the public and before the House. That is not to say


that we should push aside these valuable and rare examples of flora which exist there. But, on balance, I am bound to say that I shall support the Bill.

9.20 p.m.

Sir John Eden: As I am sure everyone will agree, this has been a most important debate, raising questions of a kind which are becoming increasingly urgent. The conflict between the demands of our expanding industrial society and the claims of agriculture and the countryside occasionally erupt in a debate of this kind.
I was heartened by what the Minister said about his dislike of the ad hoc solution, and about the encouragement which he gave to the work which is being carried on to try to find a more considered and comprehensive solution to these problems. I do not for a moment underestimate the importance of industrial development in the North-East. I take very much to heart what was said by those hon. Members who have spoken most feelingly on this subject. I intervene for a brief moment, however, to speak against the Bill, and in support of the Amendment.
There are already in this area impounding reservoirs with a total capacity of about 10,000 million gallons of water. When, in 1959, Parliamentary approval was given for the last and greatest of these reservoirs, the Balderhead Reservoir in the Tees Valley, it was said that the requirements of the water board would be met until 1983. It would appear, therefore, that as the Board has had to come to Parliament and ask for further powers to extend its reservoir area in this locality, the requirements then stated were grossly underestimated.
I recognise that this is largely due to the pace of the industrial development which has taken place there, most notably as a result of the new plant established by I.C.I. I fully recognise that there is a great need to take account of the technological advances in this organisation, and indeed also to exploit the new techniques and to develop the market outlets which are becoming available to it. As some hon. Members have said, these are some of the conflicts which each of us has to weigh up.
I am told that if this new reservoir is built, it will satisfy the water needs for about four to ten years from the time that its construction is completed. After that, I am given to understand, further water supplies will be required for the area. We are therefore contemplating, in the time scale, a comparatively short period, albeit a most significant one, for the purposes of the industrial development and livelihood of the people in the area. But against this we are accepting, at any rate partial, and I contend substantial, destruction of plant life which has come down to us from a previous age, covering many thousands of years of the time scale.
I believe that for such a short-term stop-gap requirement the destruction of an area of special scientific interest of this nature is more than just, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), "most unfortunate". This is more than just a case of, again to use his words, "the problem of the flora." This is a thing of importance not just to the locality, not just to the amenity, or even the scientific value of the region, but to all who wish to make further studies, from whichever country they happen to come, of a unique group of plants.
The best description which I have been able to find of this area was given in Cmd. 7122 of July, 1947, the Report of the Wild Life Conservation Special Committee, appointed in August, 1945, of which Dr. Huxley was Chairman. It refers to this area as supporting
many important types of alpine and sub-alpine communities (including a well-known arctic-alpine flora and fauna not developed anywhere else in Great Britain … One site probably contains more rare plants than any other of equal size in Great Britain. This district is also of great geological and physiographical interest, including an extensive exposure of the Whin Sill and a classic region for Lower Paleozoic, Carboniferous, igneous and structural geology, and was recommended as a Conservation Area.
A "conservation area" may be defined as
a tract of country the existing character of which it is desired to preserve as far as possible either for the singular beauty of its landscape or for its high scientific interest, but more usually for a combination of both.

Mr. Kitson: If this point was of such great significance, why did the Nature Conservancy in 1964 not inform the


Water Board of its interest in the area? It is useless to say that for years everybody has known of the tremendous scientific interest in this area when nobody objected in 1964, when the point was first raised.

Sir J. Eden: Obviously a case might have been made earlier and stronger, but that is not a reason for destroying the area now. Surely we should not say, "Because you are late in your representations you must let us flood this vitally important beauty site". Great consideration has been given to the alternatives to the Cow Green proposal.
It is impossible to quantify in money terms the scientific value of this area. We should consider the consequential effects of flooding even a small portion of this area upon the remainder of the area. We are talking about an area as a whole. If we alter the water table or interfere with one part of the area it is bound to have repercussions and consequential effects upon the plant life and vegetation in the other parts of the same scientific area.
But I look further ahead. I ask that this scheme shall be deferred. I ask for delay and that use shall be made of the borehole techniques and other techniques to insure against this type of emergency, which seems to be remote. Looking further ahead. I hope we shall make a substantial advance in desalination. I know that it is expensive, but the progress being made by the Atomic Energy Authority is considerable. I am encouraged in my reflections in this matter by paragraph 9 of the submission made by the promoters, when they say:
The prospects of the establishment of a nuclear power station in the North-East and of the use of North Sea gas also give reasonable grounds for hoping that the desalination of sea water might become a practicable means of augmenting water supplies between 1978 and 1985.
So originally there was to have been sufficient water in this area to meet requirements up to 1983. Industrialists are concerned about the possibility of an emergency arising in the early 'seventies. I contend that there is such a narrow gap in the time scale as not to justify the destruction of something which has existed for between 10,000 and 15,000 years.
I agree with the attitude of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler).
This is one of the reasons for my intervention in the debate. This same point was made in a two-volume book on Durham written by my father. I would end by quoting one extract, in which he said:
We must readjust our values and give regard to scientific development of Industry, not as the immediate and ultimate and only object of our existence, but as an entirely subordinate and unimportant adjunct to the true meaning and purpose of life.
These considerations are important and vital. They are ones to which increasingly hon. Members must turn their attention. We must find some long-term solution to this abiding conflict. The Bill and the Amendment give us an opportunity to make a start. I believe that it is right to use this opportunity to make a stand on this most important question.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: Having been born and having grown up in the North-East, I share their passionate concern with the problem of unemployment from which our area has suffered so much in the past. But I hope that this does not entirely colour my attitude, nor theirs, to the very real scientific and amenity interests involved in the Bill. Because of the very real concern we have with this question of unemployment and with the diversification of industry in our area, which is very closely linked with it even in time of prosperity, I make no apology for speaking first from what some might regard as a rather narrow constituency viewpoint.
These are the people to whom I owe my first loyalty. I am speaking in this connection not only for myself, but, by a curious quirk of Parliamentary fate, for my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), Sedgefield (Mr. Joseph Slater) and Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). It seems that the very scarcity of back-bench Members for the North-East is due to that area choosing such able Members that they are inevitably drawn into the Government and the task of representing them has fallen to the one exception to that rule.
The water board in this area has a big problem, in that the proportion of


water which it distributes to industry is higher than any other in the country. The demand, as has been said, arises not only from I.C.I. but considerably from steel and from various other industries. But we on this side particularly welcome the presence of I.C.I. because it has brought a badly-needed stability of employment to this area which has been, for too long, too heavily dependent upon the basic industries which have always been so particularly and savagely susceptible to recession and unemployment.
Reference has already been made to the size of employment offered by I.C.I. and I do not intend to weary the House with further statistics. But evidence of the scale of its contribution to the national economy is given by the fact that total production which in 1965 amounted to £226 million, is expected to rise by 1970—provided this Measure goes through—to £404 million. Clearly, this also includes a tremendous contribution to our exports. Last year, direct exports totalled £54 million and it is confidently expected that, providing the necessary water is available, they will rise to £100 million by 1971.
In addition to the direct contribution made by Tees-side industry to our exports, there is the indirect contribution which is, perhaps, best indicated by reminding the House that the total British production of terylene and nylon comes from I.C.I.'s factories on Tees-side. Remembering that, one can speculate how much the production of plastics contributes indirectly to further exports.
This export consideration cannot be ignored. While other industries on Teesside require large amounts of water, the Bill is particularly necessitated by the needs of I.C.I. and it is essential, therefore, that I should concentrate on those. I will, first, outline the general picture—not in detail because time does not permit—and then deal with the serious allegations that have been made against I.C.I. to the effect that the company has shown a total lack of foresight in predicting its requirements and arrogance in assuming that, once stated, those requirements must be met regardless of other considerations.
First, the general consideration. Current manufacturing today by I.C.I.

on Tees-side requires about 25 million gallons of clean water a day, plus a further 9 million gallons a day of low-quality, unfiltered water. I.C.I., Billing-ham, uses a further 2 million gallons a day of water from the Tees Estuary. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who seemed to assume too readily that neither the water Board nor I.C.I. had sought other sources of supply, should bear in mind that this search has been going on continuously and that no avenue has been neglected.

Sir D. Renton: Sir D. Renton rose—

Mr. Tinn: I will not give way. I have much to say and little time in which to say it. It will be seen from what I have said that I.C.I., Billingham, is using six times more water from the estuary than the other two sites of the firm. Nor can it be said that the industry is wasteful of water. By far the greater amount of fresh water is circulated many times through cooling towers before it is finally rejected.
I come to the allegations that have been made against I.C.I. As I said, I must try to satisfy the House on two major points in this connection. First, I must try to show why I.C.I. was unable to foresee this dramatic increase in its water needs and, secondly, I must explain why this urgent demand for water arises and why we have not been able to afford to yield to the persuasions of hon. Members who wish to delay this consideration.
Much, though not all, of the increased demand arises from the construction at Billingham of three of the world's largest single ammonia plants. This is in itself the direct consequent of the discovery and development by I.C.I. of a new ammonia synthesis which processes ammonia from oils rather than by means of the normal coal processes. It is called the naphtha steam reforming process, and was discovered and developed by I.C.I. in the period between 1960 and 1964. These dates show why the firm was unable and could not be expected, to foresee the demand. Far from being criticised on this account, the firm is to be congratulated on its enterprise and on the brains that went into this development, and also on


the speed with which, once the development was seen to be a practical possibility, it went ahead and notified the water hoard of its needs. I should like to see the rest of Britain's industry working at a similar pace; if it did, perhaps we would not be in our present difficulties.
The other charge, if I might summarise it—fairly, I hope—is that I.C.I. simply went ahead with developments involving millions of £s before Parliament had approved the Bill. The distinguished Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the Bill here had some doubts on this score; it was he, I think, who used the colourful phrase that I.C.I. was pointing a pistol at the head of Parliament. With all respect, I would point out that no amount of money committeed by I.C.I. to such development needs influence the position of this House by one iota. There is no pressure. The House, as always, is free and unfettered in its decision on this matter. Far from its putting a pistol to the head of Parliament, I believe that I.C.I. made a justified gamble—if that is the right word, though I doubt it—on the good sense of Parliament in realising the need, measuring up to the opportunity and passing this Bill.
Those who are a little more cynical than I as to the readiness of Parliament to measure up to this need might wonder why I.C.I. took such an appalling risk, running into so many millions of £s. The simple and brief answer is this. By this discovery, British technology has once again given us a lead in world markets and world technology, and for once, provided Parliament will co-operate, this lead will not be squandered, but these three years—and people talk of them as though they did not matter—are absolutely vital in this connection, and a heavy responsibility will lie upon us if we fail to realise it.
As I said at the beginning, neither I nor the other supporters of the Bill have neglected consideration of the scientific viewpoint, but we must try to get the matter in perspective. The argument is about 17 acres out of the total area. It is true, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, that there will be peripheral effects due to wave erosion and spray, but they will be peripheral effects only. The hon. Gentleman re-

ferred also to the climatic and micro-climatic effects. I do not have time available to deal with that in detail, but I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence given on the fifth day of the Committee's proceedings—page 15 and the pages following—in which a distinguished climatologist expressed the opinion that atmosphere and atmospheric changes in the area adjoining the reservoir would be only minimal.
The balance of considerations here is best summed up in the decision of the Minister peculiarly and particularly responsible for preserving scientific progress in this matter, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, however reluctantly, in weighing up the expert opinions tendered to him by various bodies concerned, nevertheless found himself forced reluctantly but quite definitely to support the Bill. It is a similar decision which I warmly recommend to the House tonight.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Listening to all the speeches tonight I have been struck by the contrast between the eloquence and sincerity of speeches from the back benches on both sides and the tameness made from the two Front Benches. I quite understand their embarrassment because the Conservative Party and the Labour Party made clear in the last election that they intended to pay more attention to the natural beauties of the countrside. I am disappointed that the speaker from my Front Bench felt unable tonight to give support to those of us who are seeking to retain this area of natural beauty.
I can equally well understand their embarrassment, because my right hon. Friends in Government in the Electricity Act, 1957, specifically required that conservation areas should be looked after in respect of their natural beauty and that the flora and fauna should be safeguarded. Equally, the Minister will remember that the Labour Government of 1945 brought in the excellent White Paper "The Conservation of Nature in England and Wales", a magnificent State document. I am sure the Minister, who will have read it, must have felt in his heart that what he said tonight departed a great distance from what was contained in that White Paper.
This is a debate not between right and wrong but between right and right. There is first the undoubted right of I.C.I. and the local water board to seek cheap water for the purpose of industrial expansion. But there is also the right of the objectors, virtually every conservation and scientific society in the country to seek to protect a singularly lovely piece of countryside which happens also by a trick of nature to be one of the world's greatest natural laboratories of post-arctic flora.
There has always been, and I think there always will be, a contest between those who put their main emphasis on economics without which I admit men and women cannot enjoy the beauties of the countryside, and those who put their main emphasis an aesthetic, scientific and cultural matters without which, let us admit, economics have little meaning. I found it a little difficult to choose between these two points of view on this Bill. I looked for a compromise, as one always does, but I fear that there is no compromise here. Either we throw out the Bill, in which case I.C.I. will have to look elsewhere for water, or we have the reservoir, in which case beyond any doubt this magnificent area will be blotted out forever.
Like other hon. Members, I have had letters from constituents. I also have a constituency interest, because reservoirs are taking up more and more agricultural land in East Anglia. But before reaching any decision I lead almost all the evidence of the 13 long days which the Committee gave to this Bill. Although I found it a heavy task, I found it an extremely interesting one. I came down on the side of the evidence against the Bill because, if I.C.I. is stopped, it will suffer only inconvenience—which, although awkward, can be got over—whereas if Cow Green is destroyed, the loss will not be simply an inconvenience but will be total and irreparable.
In effect it is a choice between a dip in I.C.I.'s profits which they would have to accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or it is the destruction of 10,000 years of unique natural history. The naturalists' argument has been well put by my hon. Friends. I confine myself to three points. First, I want to look at the way in which

the problem of water supplies has been handled in the Tees area. Not only here, but all over the country, I believe that we are tackling our water problems piecemeal and sometimes quite wrongly.
As I understand it, between 1955 and 1958 a number of sites in Tees-side were investigated for another reservoir and among them was Cow Green. Cow Green was rejected by experts and, instead, a reservoir was built at Balderhead. Balder-head needed powers from Parliament. Parliament gave those powers.
At the time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, an assurance was given by the water board that the water to be taken from Balderhead would be enough to satisfy the Board's needs for 22 years, including I.C.I., including Dorman Long, and including all of the projected development at that time.
The water board got it wrong. Balder-head was not enough for 22 years. It was not even enough for six years. Even before that reservoir was opened in October of last year, I.C.I. and Dorman Long were coming forward for more water. The evidence is quite clear that the water board has consistently underestimated the water needs of the area. Indeed, it has come to Parliament no fewer than three times in the last 12 years for more powers to build more reservoirs.
What is more, the board acknowledges that, even if this Cow Green scheme is agreed by the House tonight, it will still have to start looking for yet another, bigger source of water in the area within the next three or four years. So, in all probability, these gentlemen will be back in the House seeking yet another Private Bill on behalf of the same water board, within five to ten years from now.
At day 22, page 23 of the evidence, the chief engineer of the water board was asked what allowance the board was making for future industrial demands. His reply was a monument to this board's far-sightedness. He said this:
The allowance we are making for future industrial use is quite modest in respect of industrial demands and nothing at all for I.C.I.
He may have known that the Government's National Plan was about to collapse and that I.C.I. therefore would not need any more water! But surely we cannot be asked to believe that I.C.I. will have no more water requirements


after 1970. It simply does not make sense. It is not what I.C.I. itself told the Committee.
My point is not to cast aspersions at the water board or its engineers. It is simply to underline that estimating the future needs for water is an extremely difficult task. It is a matter of guesswork. It is easy to be wrong. But against the uncertainties—one might even say the guesswork—of water projections, is the total and absolute fact that, if this reservoir scheme is permitted to go ahead, a unique and invaluable scientific area will be lost for good.
The second point I wish to deal with is I.C.I.'s approach. I have great admiration for this magnificent firm. I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that. But I certainly hope that the firm does not tackle its usual business problems in this fashion. The firm first informed the water board that its needs would greatly increase in July, 1964. At the end of that year it said that it would want 25 million gallons a day by 1969.
The year 1969 is a very interesting date. The same witness from I.C.I. who told the Committee this, also said that it generally takes between five and seven years to complete such a reservoir. Therefore, we are told at the end of 1964 that something which will take at least five, and probably seven years, to build must be ready by 1969. This does not leave very much time for other people's views to be taken into account, for all the surveys to be done and the geological investigations to be completed, and, above all, for Parliament to be consulted.
Why was so little time left for consultation? I cannot avoid the impression that I.C.I. simply assumed that, if this mighty company wanted water in Cow Green or anywhere else, no power in England could stop it. If there is any doubt about this it is blown away by the fact that I.C.I., without even waiting for the surveys and before bothering about Parliament, went ahead, ordered the machinery and started the buildings which the water that it had not yet got was intended to be used in. It was not a question of "fly now, nay later" but "build now and worry about the water when it suits you".
As a result I.C.I. got itself into a jam. On day 5, page 7, of the evidence, the

Chairman of the Committee, having ascertained that was already putting up new works in readiness for the water for which it was still asking, asked the I.C.I. witness:
Suppose Parliament refused to pass the Bill. What would be the position of I.C.I.?
The witness replied:
We would be in a very difficult position indeed.
Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the Chairman commented:
But are you not putting a pistol at the head of Parliament when you tell us that all this building is going on because you have come to the conclusion that you put them up and then you just get the water?
That is precisely what I.C.I. is doing—putting a pistol at our heads. It is no use the promoters saying, as they did before the Committee, that they assumed that they would not need Parliament's consent, that they thought that they could get permission direct from the Minister. It was their business to know that Parliamentary permission would be required.
When a big company with an international reputation intends to spend millions on new plant, it is only prudent to its stockholders if to no one else to get all the details tied up clearly before a single shovelful of earth is moved. But I.C.I. did not do so.
Is there an alternative? I believe that there is and that it lies in the high reservoir up the river which is known as Middleton. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) said that he would not like that because it is in his constituency and would interfere with farming. I have not time to develop the argument but, having examined the evidence carefully, I have concluded that would be the better course because it would provide water not simply for this individual undertaking of I.C.I. but for the whole generality of users in the area as the population grows over the next 10 years.
I now wish to sum up. First, this is not a conflict of right with wrong, but a conflict of right with right. But the greater right lies with those who wish to retain a precious portion of our national heritage rather than with those who say, rightly, that they must have more water, because, with a little more expense and a good deal more ingenuity, they could obtain these supplies elsewhere.
Secondly, there are grave doubts, based on new construction and geological evidence, as to whether the scheme proposed is structurally sound. All reservoirs leak, as all Government's leak. But it appears that this one will leak more than most.
Thirdly, it is not proved that the promoters, I.C.I. and the local water board have done their homework right. They were wrong before and may well be wrong again.
Fourthly, I do not like the way that I.C.I. has gone about the Bill. It has been a rushed and last minute affair, as the Minister himself mentioned. What is

more, it is treating the House of Commons as a rubber stamp. It is for that reason more than any other that I and my hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Tinn: Mr. Tinn rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 82.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Gourley, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Binns, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hiley, Joseph
Redhead, Edward


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Richard, Ivor


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Cohn (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jopling, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cant, R. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Conlan, Bernard
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph


Crawshaw, Richard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Cronin, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crouch, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
McBride, Nell
Thornton, Ernest


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Neal, Harold
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Norwood, Christopher
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Oakes, Gordon



Garrett, W. E.
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Leadbitter and Mr. Kitson




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Hill, J. E. B.


Archer, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Hooley, Frank


Astor, John
Driberg, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Horner, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bessell, Peter
Gardner, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kershaw, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gregory, Arnold
Kimball, Marcus


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Kirk, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawkins, Paul
Longden, Gilbert




Lubbock, Eric
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Roebuck, Roy
Ward, Dame Irene


Madden, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald
Webster, David


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sharpies, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Manuel, Archie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marquand, David
Smith, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morgan, Eystan (Cardiganshire)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Moyle, Roland
Talbot, John E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Murton, Oscar
Tapsell, Peter
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Neave, Airey
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tuck, Raphael
Worsley, Marcus


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John



Pym, Francis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir John Eden and Mr. Blenkinsop.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third Time.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Malawi Republic Bill [Lords], the Lesotho Independence Bill [Lords] and the Botswana Independence Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this, Jay's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — MALAWI REPUBLIC BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — LESOTHO INDEPENDENCE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — BOTSWANA INDEPENDENCE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(COMMISSIONER FOR BUSHMAN AFFAIRS.)

Not later than 30th September 1966. Her Majesty may, after consultation with the Secretary General of the United Nations, by Order in Council appoint a Commissioner for Bushman Affairs.—[Sir D. Clover.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, trying to get a fair deal for the bushmen in Bechuanaland or Botswana. I must say that the most unsatisfactory reply I have ever heard from a Minister from the other side of the Committee for a long time was the reply given to me on that occasion. I am going to bore the Committee—I think that that is the right word—by reading what the Secretary of State said.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was concerned about the problem of the bushmen.
I accept that very few Members understand the problems of the bushmen and might describe this as a minor problem.
I understand"—
the Secretary of State said—
that a trained anthropologist was commissioned to consider the welfare of these people a year ago. That gentleman made a survey. A copy of his report was published last year and is now in the Library of the House.
This was very reassuring to me, after the speech that I have made, to know that the only action the Government was taking before giving this country independence related to a report that I could read in the Library of the House. I have already read the report, as no doubt, have a great many hon. Members. The Minister went on:
Responsibility for the bushmen's affairs has now been placed with the portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the extent to

which the Bechuanaland Government will be able to devote funds—
and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to this—
especially to assist the bushmen themselves will depend upon other competing demands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1669.]
This is what I am asking the hon. Gentleman about tonight before we give this country its independence. I am not opposing in any way the granting of independence to Botswana. I believe that it is one of the few countries which has the sort of leadership which warrants granting it independence. I have an enormous admiration for Dr. Seretse Khama, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that there is anything critical in what I say.
To return to the problem of the bush-men. I do not think that I can alert the Committee to the problem of these people, because their problem is something about which most of us can have no conception. These people are looked upon in the country in which they live by the whites as being a sort of human being in which no one would take any interest and by the Bantu as sub-human. They have been driven out by the whites and the Bantu from the land that they occupied. Four hundred years ago they occupied the whole of South Africa. Now they have finished up living a precarious life on the edge of the Kalahari desert. It is one of the accidents of Nature that these poor and little people with no one to speak for them are being handed over when this country attains independence to a population the majority of whom do not think of them as human beings at all.
I understand the problems of Her Majesty's Government, and I am not being critical. If we are going to hand these people over without making any safeguards for them, then we are handing the bushmen over to extermination. Let us make no bones about it, let us not be mealy-mouthed. Let us not speak of liberation for Botswana. If we hand this country over to independence without the safeguards which have existed—very ineffectively—during the years that we have been responsible for the country then we know perfectly well that 50,000 bushmen will probably cease to exist in the next 20 years.
I am trying, even at this stage, to get some machinery which will protect the interests of this completely defenceless minority. They will not send delegates to the United Nations. There will not be an impassioned debate about them in the House. They will just cease to exist. All that I am asking the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill is whether, even at this stage, we can produce some machinery to protect the interests of the bushmen.
My Amendment is the nearest Amendment you, Sir Eric, would have called as being in order. I know that the Under-Secretary of State will not mind if I say that it is not what I should have liked to propose as an Amendment. I should have liked to table an Amendment saying that Her Majesty's Government will, for many years to come, probably for the next 20 years, to provide aid to Botswana. It may be £1 million, £2 million or £3 million a year. If I were a Bantu living in poverty in Botswana, I would endeavour to make sure that nearly all the money which this country provided went to my people.
All that I am asking in this Amendment is that before we give this country its independence we will provide out of the £3 million a year which we give towards the development of Botswana, say £25,000—and if we provide £3 million a year £25,000 is very small—for the bushmen. The Secretary-General of the United Nations should be told, "Here are the most depressed people in the world who are in a worse position even than the serfs and, probably, chattel slaves in Saudi Arabia. They are looked upon by the whites and blacks in that community as being less than human."
Before giving this country independence, we should ensure that some person will be responsible in the years to come for their welfare. I do not suggest that this person should make them millionaires or superior to the Bantu, but he should have the responsibility of ensuring that the conditions of these people do not deteriorate but gradually improve as the standard of living of the country in which they live improves. History shows that with education and training these people are at least as intelligent as the remainder of the population. But the remainder of the population do not look upon them as having an equal status.
This problem is far worse than the problem of the negro element in the United States and all the problems we have discussed in the House in recent years. Here is a community of people who are literally looked upon by the rest of the people in that country as not being worth making a protest to the police about if one of them is shot—and they are shot, sometimes when they steal cattle because they are starving. They are looked upon as sub-human by the whites, many of whom are Afrikaans, but they are almost entirely looked upon as sub-human by the Bantu. Their women are used by the Bantu for sexual purposes without permission, and they are a lesser breed, without the law.
We are giving the country its independence, but, before doing so, I believe that we have a moral duty to make quite certain that we do everything in our power to protect the interests of the voiceless minority who are the bush-men on the edge of the Kalahari Desert.
During the Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State indicated that for the next five, ten or 15 years it is likely that this country will be giving £2 million or £3 million a year in aid to Botswana. All I ask is that the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, will accept the spirit of my Amendment and accept that, under the conditions which exist, though it would be wrong for the Government to try and appoint a Commissioner for Bushmen Affairs to look after their interests, because that would be labelled in Botswana as neocolonialism, it would not be wrong for us to find the money for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to appoint a Commissioner for Bushman Affairs to protect the interests of this voiceless minority.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for any length of time, because I made the argument for the Bushmen the other night. Her Majesty's Government know as well as I do the problems that exist. They will not have power for much longer if they give independence to the country. I plead with them, while they still have the power, to say that we are not going to hand the country over to independence without taking on our moral duty to look after this voiceless minority, and that we will say to Botswana that, whatever the amount we give


to its Government year by year, £20,000 or £25,000 a year will be earmarked to provide a commissioner appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations—I do not mind if it is in consultation with the Prime Minister of Botswana—to look after the interests of this depressed class and make quite certain that we have carried out our obligations and our moral duty to people who cannot come to this House, who cannot go to the United Nations and who are not likely to rally the Morse Committee with apartheid and suchlike.
The bushmen are a small group of people who are voiceless. Before giving the country independence, it is the duty of this Government to protect their rights and their future. Under my Amendment, I believe that, without any great cost to the people of this country, we can do it. I plead with the hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, if he really stands for the humanitarian things for which he has spoken in the House on many occasions, to accept the spirit of my Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I rise to support the plea that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has put to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
There are two points in his remarks which I would like to take up. One is that there is no doubt that Dr. Khama can be relied upon to have as much concern for these people as he could be expected to have in his own circumstances.
My second point relates to the hon. Gentleman's suggested sum of £25,000. I do not think that that would be enough, I would put it much higher than that, even within a total ceiling of £3 million.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's aims could be achieved without taking the matter to the United Nations. If we are to give this country its nationhood, its independence, and the ability to work within its own framework, knowing the people who are to be in charge of its affairs, and knowing also their limited resources, I think that we could get an undertaking from the leaders of the country that they will, within the framework of the aid that is to be given to them,

look after these people. They may have their own proposals about helping these people, but I think that some understanding can be arrived at.

Sir D. Glover: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think that he has missed the point that I was making. If I may say so without disrespect, I do not think that he understands the situation. Few people in this House do. When a country which is grinding with poverty gets £3 million from this country, and when there are so many Bantu who need this aid, and when the Bantu do not regard these people as human, they will get very little help unless we do something to help them before we grant independence to the country.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman is a much greater authority on this subject than I am, and it is to his credit that he has raised this issue now, after the strenuous time that we have had in the House during the last few days, but I think that what he wants can be achieved within the framework of granting independence and during the negotiations which will take place between Her Majesty's Government and the new independent Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that not many people appreciated this problem. Not many months ago the B.B.C. showed a series of films on this part of the world, and the need for educating the nation about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken is as great as ever before. I support the hon. Gentleman in his intentions, and I ask my hon. Friend to tell us how far he can go to help the bushmen, and what kind of negotiations are to take place about this in the future.

Dame Joan Vickers: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), because for a long time I have taken an interest in the bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, in particular. I originally came into contact with them when an agreement was made in my house between Seretse Khama and Tshekedi Khama, one of the greatest Africans I have known. supported by Michael Scott. It was as a result of that decision that we went to see the then Commonwealth Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and got agreement


that Seretse Khama could return to his country, and I think that he has proved to be a magnificent leader since.
When one looks at a map of this country, one realises that it is bigger than France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Luxemburg put together, and one realises what a problem one has with only 500,000 people there. As my hon. Friend said, there is a temptation to deal with the people who are on the spot, the people in the cities, rather than with those in the Kalahari Desert.
I understand that the constitution of independence will be provided separately by an Order in Council. I wonder, therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman could, in that Order in Council, include in a provision to protect the bushmen, because it is essential that some action is taken to this end.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the film which I showed in the Grand Committee Room upstairs. It was taken by an American, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be been astonished, or perhaps horrified, as were some of my audience, by the facts. Even when one looks at the book in the Library, to which reference has been made, one is ashamed not only of this Government, but of previous ones, for the lack of action on behalf of these people. One sees their poor physique, and realises that they literally have to scratch the ground for their food. I had to stop the film, because in this country there are many animal lovers, and it showed a giraffe which I understand it took nearly four hours to kill with bows and arrows. It was a horrifying spectacle on the film, and although the American who produced it wanted it to go on to the finish. I had to stop it. This shows the extreme measures to which the bush-men have to go to get their food. When we think of the terrible famine that occurred in this country in recent months, we realise that these people are finding life even more difficult. They are nomadic, and if they want to get food they have to go to various employers who give them something to sustain them.
About one-third of the population, not counting the bushmen, are living, on average, on 10 ounces of maize and one ounce of vegetable oil. It is better to go to prison there, because there one gets

1½ pounds of maize, fresh vegetables and sugar each day. These are very primitive people, but we should think of them as human beings and not just specimens for anthropologists to investigate, which is what they are at the moment.
When I was in Malaysia we had a protector for the hillmen, male and female, and this worked very satisfactorily. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps a special sum of money could be earmarked for these people. It will be difficult for the future President, unless a sum is earmarked, because he will feel forced to say to the people who are living on a famine existence at the moment, "I cannot spend this £25,000 we are getting on you, the bushmen, because we need it for the people who are working and helping to support the country in its dire need."
I hope that the Minister will think of my suggestion, that when he considers setting up the constitution by Order in Council he should incorporate a clause safeguarding the future of the bushmen. I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend that something should be done. I put forward a petition in Uganda on behalf of one of the minority tribes providing for a referendum before we gave it independence. My suggestion was not agreed to by the then Conservative Government, but later they had a referendum and afterwards at least two people were killed in disturbances. I ask for the protection of the bushmen while we still have time. The solution put forward by my hon. Friend may not be the best one, but it is one possible solution, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I support the new Clause, and I also endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Unless something is done on these lines there is a possibility of the complete and utter elimination of the bushmen as a tribe, or a race, as they exist at the moment. They are a race with a very ancient culture, and I thought the response by the Secretary of State on Tuesday, to which my hon. Friend has already referred, was an exceptionally weak one.
All he said—with some pride—was that a report had been published and that it was in the Library, as though that was a triumph in itself, and that hon. Members should wish no more than to study the report and go away satisfied. I have studied the report. I should point out that my interest is not an idle one, because I have been among the bushmen and I have land just over the border in Rhodesia. The report is an admirable and painstaking piece of work. It was commissioned in 1958, completed in 1964 and published last year.
In the debate on Second Reading, it was suggested to the Secretary of State that a certain proportion of the aid which we are going to give in ensuing years to the new country of Botswana should be earmarked for the development and protection of the bushmen. Probably rightly, the Secretary of State said that it would be impracticable and impossible to tie strings to money in that manner, so my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk has made another suggestion, which I at least accept.
I suggest that his suggestion about the appointment of a Commissioner for Bush-men's Affairs is eminently practical and one which many of us on both sides of the House would like to see adopted, as we do not want to see the bushmen deteriorate even more than they have in the past few years to the status of their closely related cousins, the Hottentot Hollands in the southern part of the continent, who have virtually ceased to exist.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State what has been done about the recommendations in the Silberbauer Report, published in 1965. Many useful and pungent suggestions are made in that report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has considered very carefully. One of the firmest recommendations of Mr. Silberbauer was that 15 new water bore-holes should be established in the Central Kalahari Reserve for the use of the bushmen. Has that scheme been started or completed? If not, when will a start be made on what is one of Mr. Silberbauer's most important recommendations?
Another very striking recommendation in the report, on which I am anxious to know the progress made, is the question of a subsidy which it was recom-

mended should be paid to stimulate the schooling and post-schooling participation in the pupil-farmer scheme for bush-men and their children. This was one of the most important of the five or six salient recommendations of the report. It would appear to cost very little to start. Has a start been made on it? If so, what sort of response has there been to this attempt to educate the bushmen? Is it proposed and has an assurance been given that this programme will continue in the fruitful years which we hope lie ahead for this new country?
Has the experimental breeding and cattle station in the Ghanzi farm area been established for the purpose of teaching bushmen and their children the rudiments of farming, cattle culture, tilling the soil and giving them some idea of how they can best help themselves? The Minister will remember that in 1963 it was recommended to the Legislative Council that the western boundary of the Central Kalahari Reserve be moved a few miles east, thereby considerably reducing the area of land on which, for many years, the bushmen have managed to eke out a living. No action was taken on that recommendation, and one recommendation in the Silberbauer Report was that under no circumstances should the boundary be moved in that way.
After nearly seven painstaking years in the Central Kalahari district, Mr. Silberbauer firmly recommended that the boundary should not be moved eastwards—that the territory available in the Central Kalahari to the bushmen should not be reduced in that manner—and I hope that we will be told that this matter has been raised with the new authority in Bechuanaland and that an assurance has been received from that authority.
We have had two bites at this apple. On Second Reading we asked for the earmarking of a certain proportion of aid to go to sustaining the bushmen, and tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk has moved the new Clause. We have also had a new suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port. Hon. Members will recall the deep concern which the Minister showed, when in opposition, for the rights of minorities to be protected. We therefore feel that, in making these suggestions, our seeds are falling on fruitful ground.
If the Clause is not acceptable and if aid cannot be earmarked, as an alternative to those two suggestions I wonder if something could be done through the C.D.C., which has done a great job of work, not only for countries which still have colonial status but for many territories which have achieved independence in the Commonwealth. Could we, through the C.D.C., help the bushmen of Botswana in our general programme of activities through that organisation? Could not the C.D.C. take over the Ghanzi Farm and establish it as an experimental cattle breeding station for the benefit of the bushmen in the years of independence that lie ahead? Many people including hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, fear that the bushmen will get a raw deal. We do not want to see them relegated to the status that the Red Indians have in America.
I conclude by wishing the new country of Botswana, under the very able leadership of Seretse Khama, the best of luck in the years that lie ahead.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) made what all hon. Members will agree was a powerful plea on behalf of the bushmen, a plea which, I am sure, has left us with a considerable feeling of unease.
We were not greatly impressed by the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the other night concerning the Report in the Library, because, as a comprehensive Report, it naturally points to the gaps in the past rather than giving any assurances for the future. The plea made by my hon. Friend has been supported by many hon. Members, powerfully so by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk pointed out, he is not particularly wedded to the wording of the new Clause and would have chosen other wording had he been able to do so. However, he is wedded to the spirit of it in requiring from the Minister some reassurance that this problem can be satisfactorily dealt with.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether this question was discussed with the future rulers of Botswana either

before or during the independence Conference, and I would plead with him, as my hon. Friends and as the hon. Member for West Derby have pleaded, to give us some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has spoken of the Minister's past espousal of the cause of minorities, and I am sure that he has not listened to this plea unmoved. We know that he will reply sympathetically, but we should like him also to reply in a way that will give real reassurance to those who have listened to this debate, none of whom has been entirely unmoved.

10.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse): In his remarkable book "The Lost World of the Kalahari", Laurens van der Post said that the bushman had no champion. They have found their champion here tonight in the person of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to use this new Clause as a peg on which to hang his case, which is not new to him, on behalf of this minority in Botswana. I respect that purpose, and I think that the whole Committee has been moved by the way in which he pursued this case.
The Committee may not be aware that many bushmen have already been absorbed into the Botswana community, but there are three groups which can still be identified. There are some 6,000 nomadic bushmen, who live in the interior and fend for themselves. There are some 4,000 who live on the farms in the Ghanzi part of Botswana, and many of these are associated with European farms there. There are about 14,000 who live for most of the time in the villages of the Bantu tribes. I think that those who have spoken on the Clause are concerned about all three groups, and I want to deal with the points they have made.
First of all—and I would ask the Committee to follow me in this—I think that it will be a slight on the Government of Dr. Seretse Khama and his colleagues if we begin to introduce Clauses of this character into the Bill just before Botswana obtains independence. The automatic comment on that would be: "Britain has had responsibility for 81 years—why has she not done this before? Why does she wait until the 59th minute


of the 11th hour before introducing a provision like this? If there has been neglect of the bushmen in the past, it is the responsibility of Britain. It is no good coming at the last moment, trying to impose these conditions on a newly-independent country, when Britain has not accepted responsibility in the past."
I think that that would be the reply we would get if we started to introduce this sort of Clause, and on that ground alone I would ask the Committee not to accept this proposal. But I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman in moving the Clause, and his hon. Friends in speaking to it, are anxious to pursue the spirit of their idea and are not wedded to this particular formula.
There is the other point that it is not necessarily the case that the formula would survive after independence. What we want is something that will survive after independence, and be a real safeguard to the bushmen. The real safeguard is the acceptance by the other people in this newly-independent State of the fact that the bushmen are equal with them in every respect, and are entitled, as human beings, to respect and economic opportunity, as well as education, with everyone else.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Surely the point is that the bushmen are not equal? They do not want to be equal. What they need, if they are to be preserved, is active and positive assistance in order to preserve themselves. If they are treated as equals they will perish and disappear.

Mr. Stonehouse: This is a difficult problem, because many of the nomadic bushmen regard their way of life as superior to ours, and who are we to say that their way of life may not be superior to ours? They are equal in the eyes of the law and in terms of opportunity to vote. So far as concerns the constitution of the independent State of Botswana, the bushmen will be equal to everybody else. I have no doubt at all that the Government of Seretse Khama will be anxious to preserve this position, not only after independence, but for all time. I think the Committee knows Seretse Khama and knows that there has been no better man for the defence of the rights of these men.

Sir D. Glover: I know that the hon. Gentleman approaches this matter in a sympathetic manner, but the trouble is that so little is known about these people. I know that Seretse Khama is absolutely bang on, a great progressive who will do a wonderful job for the people of Bechuanaland, but the people who have been assimilated are chattel slaves. They are not equal in the eyes of those with whom they are living. They are part of the farming community and are in fact slaves of the community.

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot wholly accept that. I think the Silberbauer Report, referred to by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), whose comments I echo—it is a remarkable document which I recommend hon. Members to read—showed that, far from being slaves, many of these bushmen were operating in a client relationship which cannot be identified with slavery as referred to by the hon. Member for Ormskirk. It is to be hoped that that relationship will improve and that the bushmen will become more and more conscious of their inherent rights as years go by. I think there is every chance that they will do so.
There is already evidence, as a result of the elections when the bushmen participate as electors along with the others, to suggest that this shows them that they are entitled to these rights and, as a result, they are more anxious to secure the rights they should enjoy.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I have been listening with interest to this discussion. I think I should interpret the feelings of my hon. Friends if I said that of course we accept the constitutional rights as set out, but, as has been shown in the case of Canadians and Eskimos and Red Indians and in the case of Australian Aborigines, there was a feeling of trusteeship towards these people until they were in an intellectual and social position in which they could take advantage of the rights written into the constitution. What happens in the interim is what causes worry to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that the words used in this debate will not go unheeded in Botswana, but I think that already Dr. Seretse Khama has recognised the importance of taking notice of


this matter now that he has been given this responsibility. We have also to recognise that in the last few years they have had enormous problems of famine and drought. In these circumstances, everybody is sentenced to poverty of a degree that none of us in this Committee could possibly understand. We hope that as the country emerges from this poverty and backwardness, the bushmen will have equal opportunity along with everybody else to develop.
I wish to talk about two or three points that were raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, who knows the bushmen and who made a number of suggestions. He asked about the reaction to the Silberbauer Report. At least three boreholes have been provided in the Central Kalahari game reserve. As to educational opportunity, I believe that in the areas where bushmen live together with the other tribes, they will have an opportunity for education along with the other tribes.
I will look into the hon. Member's question about the special provision in the Ghanzi area of new facilities, although I very much doubt whether the Colonial Development Corporation could take up this idea specifically for the bushmen. It would, I think, be against the custom and the spirit of the C.D.C. that it should operate projects in a Commonwealth country for a community within a community. It would probably be inappropriate for the C.D.C. to try to differentiate between different communities or tribes within one of these countries. I am, however, sure that if the C.D.C. were to extend its enterprise, which is already considerable in Botswana—everybody knows about the abattoir at Lobatsi which has been very helpful—this would be helpful to the bushmen as well as to the other communities in Botswana.
I should like to look with more care into the question of the boundary of the Central Kalahari game reserve before giving a categorical answer concerning the boundaries. I assure the Committee, however, that in the constitution—and this partly answers the question of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers)—there will be the continuing protection for the game reserve to be available to the bush-men. Other communities will be pro

hibited from going into the game reserve. This will be provided for in the constitution, so that it will be a fairly permanent safeguard.
As the Committee will know, the game reserve is an area in the centre of Botswana of 19,000 square miles where most of the nomadic bushmen live. They live with and off the game. They hunt only when they need the food. They are not indiscriminate in their killing of the game. It is, therefore, a game and a bushmen reserve. This area will continue to be protected for the nomadic bushmen in that part of Botswana. This, I am glad to say, has been endorsed by all the political groups who came together in 1963 to discuss the future constitution of Botswana. That will be a fairly fundamental safeguard for the nomadic bush-men.
As to the others, we must rely on the good sense, for which we all have great respect, of the Botswana Ministers, led by Dr. Seretse Khama, to ensure that the bushmen have equal rights with the other Batswana in this new independent State. I have no doubt that we can rely on the Botswana Ministers to honour their sincere regard for the equality of all human beings, whatever tribe they may belong to, and that, whether or not they are bushmen, they will be considered, in the newly-independent State, as equal human beings with the rest.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for our aid to be tied with strings in the way suggested. I appreciate the object of the hon. Member for Ormskirk in putting forward his point of view but it would, I repeat, be inappropriate, a slight and an assumption of on the part of the Botswana Ministers if we were to try and tie our aid to some particular project on behalf of the bushmen in advance of that aid being allowed. I ask the Committee not to go along with the new Clause but to rely on the good sense and good will of the Botswana administration towards the bushmen.

Mr. Farr: Will there be a representative in the Legislative Assembly of the people of the Central Kalahari Reserve?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that there will be directly, but we believe that the bushmen are and will be playing an increasing part in the political life of the


country. They have votes like everyone else and, as they have educational opportunity, we hope that they will make their presence felt all the more. They are, in numbers, a very small community and it is better for them really that their influence should be felt in more integration in political terms with the other tribes rather than that there should be special provision for them. The Central Kalahari Game Reserve is being reserved for the bushmen and, for the nomadic bushmen, that is very good protection indeed.
I thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in this debate but, as I have said, I am not able to accept the new Clause. However, I am sure that the words spoken tonight and the pleas that have been made will not go unheeded in Botswana and I am sure that what hon. Members are aiming at will certainly be achieved as a result of the good will that will be achieved through independence.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I have listened patiently to the debate and hoped that we should have a far more satisfactory answer from the Under-Secretary of State. It is no answer to the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), that, to adopt either his new Clause or an adaptation of it, would be a slight on the new rulers of Botswana.
I had the honour of knowing Tshekedi Khama for many years. I acted for him professionally. He was in my home on many occasions and I stayed with him in Serowe on many occasions. He was a very humane man with the welfare of his people at heart, as is Dr. Seretse Khama. I will be frank. Tshekedi Khama was a member of the great ruling class of Bechuanaland, as is Dr. Seretse Khama. The Khamas ruled the land with a strong hand and kept the peace for many years. But throughout their rule the problem of the bushmen was never solved.
I know that this comes back on us as well, that we have some responsibility and that the problem was not solved in our time either. But two wrongs do not make a right. Now that the issue has been brought with such strength before the Committee tonight and before the House the other night by my hon.

Friend the Member for Ormskirk, it is the responsibility of the Government to find a solution to the problem. It is not sufficient to say, "We hope that the new rulers will look after the bushmen and will find some solution." What the Under-Secretary of State was saying was that no Government in this country in the past had found a solution but that the granting of independence may find a solution, that the Government hope that it will and that we must trust the new rulers to find it. I do not think that that is sufficient now that the matter has been raised with such force.
Some course should be taken along the lines proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk if not strictly in accordance with his new Clause. There are many ways in which we can do this. The offer of help, the co-operation from C.D.C. has been suggested. There are many ways, and it is a matter of choosing the best, but it is insufficient, it is criminal, to sit back now and say that we have no solution to suggest, that we must not create a slight on the new rulers, that we must just leave it to them to think it out, with no particular offer of assistance to them in thinking out their problems.
I am sure that had Tshekedi Khama been alive now—and I have always looked on him as one of the greatest African statesmen, if not the greatest—he would have supported my hon. Friend in trying to find a solution to this problem. In those days when he was pressing for a democratic government in Bechuanaland he thought that by giving the vote and having a democratic government there these sort of problems would be solved, but they will not be solved just by themselves, without some assistance from us now that we are granting independence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about this question, because everyone who has spoken tonight has had some knowledge and connection with Botswana and has that country at heart.

11.12 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: The Joint Under-Secretary of State—I do not criticise him—has spoken with great sympathy, but I find his reply completely unsatisfactory. It seems to me that when we are dealing with a problem of people who cannot make their voice heard the House takes


what I call a legalistic line. Why do we not take the same line with the people in Rhodesia? Why do we not say that the Government there are in power, and that therefore we must not interfere? This is completely illogical.
I am not going to divide the House. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose, for the Government's will would prevail, and it would create the wrong atmosphere in Botswana. But here we are dealing with a problem of voiceless people. If they were voiceful and were in London today with a deputation seeing the Colonial Office we should not be having this debate tonight. We are having the debate only because they are voiceless people who cannot fight for their own rights. If they could, it would be written into the Constitution that their rights would be safeguarded. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman or his Government. I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends are equally responsible, and that if they were on the other side of the House they would probably be taking exactly the same line. But that is not the point.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Silberbauer Report. Every person who knows anything about this territory would tell one that the Silberbauer Report is the most slanted report in favour of the Government of Bechuanaland of any published in the last 20 years. It is not a true picture of these people. It brings out all the highlights of their advancement and none of their degradation. It is not a fair report.
People to whom I have spoken have all said that it is the most slanted report they have ever read about the problem of the bushmen of the Kalahari and Bechuanaland. That is not being unfair to Seretse Khama. I believe that he is a great leader. He will do a great deal for his country. But let us be quite honest. Even with our communications and with our society, how many other hon. Members take an interest in the problems of hon. Members who come here to represent minorities in, for example, the north of Scotland or the Orkneys?
The average annual income per head in the country is probably £10 or £15. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that Seretse Khama, the head of the Khama

tribe, faced with grinding poverty among his own people, will have the power or the will to take, perhaps, £1 a year from each of those people to protect the bushmen? Just think of the political pressures he would face. It is not as though the rest of the Bantu in that country are earning £1,000 a year and a little bit of aid to the bushmen would be unimportant. What it means is that some Bantu will suffer from starvation so that some bushmen will not die from starvation.
What the Under-Secretary of State has said tonight offers no solution or satisfactory answer to the problem. Once we have passed this Bill, we have no further responsibility. Every independent observer will say that the great belief of the bulk of the people of Bechuanaland, or Botswana, is that the sooner the bushmen die out the better. This is their deeply held belief. Today, we are the protecting power. This is our moment of truth. I admit that we have a deplorable record. But that is no answer. It is no good saying that because they were going to starve 10 years ago, we can be quite happy to let them starve now.
I know our record is deplorable—I do not mind if the hon. Gentleman criticises my party or anyone else—but we are now at our moment of truth. Unless we do something to protect these people, we are condemning them to death. Let us make no bones about it. Let the House of Commons be quite clear in its mind. It is as simple as that. We are condemning them to death because the bulk of the population think that the sooner they die the better.
Are Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons prepared to take that responsibility on their shoulders? We can avoid it not at any great cost in money but by ensuring that there is someone with the responsibility to look after the interests of this defenceless minority—I do not suggest that they will be driving about in Rolls-Royces or anything silly like that—and to ensure that in the fabric of the nation their rights are protected. There must be someone with a voice outside their own country, at the United Nations or anywhere else, who can say that their Government are being unfair to the bushmen.
Let us not be squeamish about the alternative, if no one has that voice. The Under-Secretary has been very kind, and I thank him for the generous tribute he paid to me at the beginning of his reply, but I want him and the House to be in no doubt. Unless he, as the representative of Her Majesty's Government, takes some steps to protect the rights of this small voiceless minority, 25 years from now we shall be able to have the Requiem Mass over their demise, for they will all be dead.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed without Amendment

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SALMONELLA TYPHIMURIUM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kitson: In a week when we have had the announcement of a brucellosis eradication scheme, for which many hon. Members on this side of the House have been pressing over a number of years, it is almost unfair to launch into debate about another disease which is similar in that salmonella typhimurium can affect the human being through a disease in cattle. It is probably true to say that the dangers to humans are going to be far greater unless precautions are taken immediately to counter the spread of this disease in cattle.
Already this year we have had confirmed in the Portsmouth area—and I have established this with the public health laboratory there—the deaths of three people from salmonella typhimurium. My attention was first drawn to this problem by a series of excellent articles, written by John Field, in the Reading Evening Post. I felt it right to check the factual content of these articles and this led me to some documents upon which these articles were based and which have been produced by Dr. Anderson, who is the Director of the Central Public Health Laboratory. He

has been doing research work on this problem for several years and in conjunction with Dr. Lewis he has produced a number of papers.
Salmonella typhimurium is the commonest cause of food poisoning in the country. It affects about a thousand people a week, and it is an unpleasant disease which is more liable to kill the very young or very old. It would appear from medical reports that it is on the increase. It is also the commonest cause of calf death in this country. Since large numbers of calves are reared for human consumption the dangers of transmission of this disease from meat to humans is obvious. It is an accepted medical fact that bacterial resistances to any given drug is fostered by continual administration of that drug and that the use of drugs in animal husbandry over the last 10 years has increased rapidly.
This has prompted Anderson and Lewis, in an article in the British Medical Journal, to point out that the high incidence of drug resistance in calves was due to a combination of poor hygienic conditions in animal husbandry, especially in intensive farming, transport and marketing of calves and the distribution of infected stock by dealers, and by the too free use of anti-bacterial drugs in efforts to control the resultant salmonellosis.
Drug resistance is usually multiple and is directed against the anti-bacterial drugs commonly used in human and veterinary medicine, for example, ampicillin, chloramphenicol, neomycin, kanamycin, streptomycin, sulpholomides and tetracycline. Therefore, if a farmer has a drug resistant salmonella in his herd the drugs to which the salmonella is resistant will have no effect on anyone contracting that salmonella, that is the drug resistant one.
There are no enforceable restrictions to stop a farmer who has a drug resistant salmonella in his herd from selling his animals and spreading the disease, and therefore the resistant organisms. There is documentary evidence that a particular salmonella has been spread by one calf dealer into nearly every county—certainly into 37 counties. Even though the technical laboratories and the public health workers know the background to this problem there are no powers to control it.
This brings me back to the three deaths in the Portsmouth area. In a recent outbreak in Hampshire five deaths occurred, three of which were from a salmonella typhimurium infection. The strain was of the type 29, which is most commonly found in calves and certainly resistant to several antibiotics. Three of those who died were children and there were no inquests. The causes of the deaths were septicaemia in two cases and salmonella meningitis in the third. All began with an initial infection of salmonella typhimurium. Eight of those not fatally infected were very seriously ill, and detailed evidence points strongly to calves being responsible. The figures were confirmed by Dr. Payne of the Portsmouth Public Health Laboratories. He pointed out that this was an area which had been relatively free from salmonella in the past.
I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to an article which was produced by Dr. Geoghagan in The Medical Officer of Health. He is the medical officer for the Midhurst Rural District. The article said:
In a well documented case of food poisoning 59 people in West Sussex were hit by Salmonella Typhimurium in their milk last April—the source of the infection was a herd of calves in an intensive beef unit on the same farm as the dairy herd.
The intensive beef unit was set up as a sideline by the dairy farmer, using very young calves bought from a dealer 100 miles away specialising in the calf trade.
Over a dozen beef calves were housed in separate buildings some distance from the dairy herd. Within days one of the calves died and Salmonella was confirmed. The area medical officer, Dr. V. P. Geoghagan, was immediately informed though it was not yet directly his concern.
But a matter of days later he was called in by a woman whose children, aged six and 18 months, had gastro-enteritis. Though a check on milk from the farm—which was sold unpasteurised—proved negative for Salmonella, cultures from the dead calf and sick children showed Salmonella Typhimurium of the same type—phage 29.
The farmer was contacted but he maintained that since the beef calves and the dairy herd were separately housed the infection could not have spread.
Inside a week five more cases were reported, even though the farmer had agreed to pasteurise all his milk while samples were tested for Salmonella. One of the five cases was a contact with the first sick children.
By April 29 nine beef calves had died, one milking cow had died and other cows were

showing signs of infection. Reports of infection were flowing in from local doctors and a total of 59 cases of poisoning were recorded. Many were hospital cases.
Salmonella was eventually confirmed in the milk and an order made for the farmer to pasteurise his milk compulsorily until the infection was cleared.
Although he wound up his beef unit the farmer's cows were not cleared by the authorities until November. Cost of the whole disastrous beef rearing operation—ten beef calves, one dairy calf, a dairy cow and six months' lost profit on milk sales plus 59 cases of poisoning, some requiring hospital treatment."
Dr. Geoghagan's report on the outbreak went on:
Several lessons have been learned from the outbreak. Salmonellosis in cattle is not covered by the Diseases of Cattle Acts, so even when it is detected in a dairy herd or on a dairy farm the medical officer of health would not necessarily know about it. Indeed, there is no obligation for the Divisional Veterinary Surgeon to be informed. The most frustrating aspect of Salmonellosis in cattle is that having detected the infection and having prevented its spread to the public via milk one has no power to eradicate the disease from the herd concerned.
These figures demonstrate the necessity for the Ministry of Agriculture to take powers immediately.
I recognise that a Committee under Lord Netherthorpe was set up to look into the problems of the use of drugs in animal husbandry and the use of antibiotics as feed additives, and I would hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he will indicate whether the terms of reference of that Committee would enable it to consider some of these problems. Of course, this does not detract from the necessity for the Minister to take powers to cope with the situation as we have it today.
The Report of the Netherthorpe Committee, which was submitted to the Agriculture Research Council and the Medical Research Council in 1962, pointed out that the dangers of the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry should be watched, and rapid action should be taken by the authorities concerned with control. But it would appear to me that the Minister of Agriculture has no control.
There is little doubt that there should be better liaison between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture about the problem. I have stressed


before, when campaigning over the problem of paratyphoid B and the importation of liquid Chinese egg, the problems of brucellosis and the human infection through undulant fever and again this problem of salmonella typhimurium diseases, the necessity for a more coordinated approach to the problem between the two Departments.
There is no doubt that the build up of drug resistant organisms, both in animals and in human beings, will increase unless a firm approach is made to the problem. Only too often before have I seen the findings of eminent research workers in these fields, when recommendations and papers have been produced, being shelved for future consideration, and the British Medical Association and the British Veterinary Association have supported the views of those doing the research that action should be taken immediately.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have consultations, recognising the importance of the problem, to try to see if powers can be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture so that where we have known cases of salmonella typhimurium on farms, at least his "vets" can go in and clear up the situation. It is an appalling state of affairs when it is known that from one farm the disease has infected 37 counties in the country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some assurances when he replies to the debate.

11.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): In raising the point about co-operation between Departments, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) does both Departments less than justice. There is a constant interchange of opinions and views on these matters. Indeed, without going too far back, even dealing with antibiotics and the effects which they might have, it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, a circular was issued in 1964 dealing with that very subject. It was repeated in the early part of this year, warning all our officials, veterinary officers, veterinary investigation officers and all concerned with the problem to keep a look out for it.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are very much aware of what is going on. Our veterinary officers will report to medical officers of health cases of salmonellosis in herds if the infection is likely to affect humans. They know that they have to do that.
I do not want to underestimate the seriousness of the problem, but we ought not to create panic over it, because there is no evidence of any increase in the incidence of the disease caused by the organism. Recorded incidents of food poisoning from salmonella typhimurium in England and Wales amongst humans have decreased annually from 2,503 in 1961 to 1,721 in 1965. On the basis of the first five months of 1966, it looks as though there will be a further decline this year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for that information. No such figures are available for the disease in animals. But reports from our veterinary investigation centres show that, in recent months, the number of cases of salmonellosis confirmed in cattle is considerably lower than for the same period of 1965. The reports also show that the proportion of cases due to salmonella typhimurium has fallen markedly.
Salmonella typhimurium is widespread in nature. It is possible for human beings to be infected from wild animals, and particularly rodents, and from farm animals. It cannot be eradicated, because there is no known way of doing this. I regret having to say it, but that is the fact.
Under suitable conditions, the organism can live away from the animal for a long time, and re-infection from many sources can always occur. Because we cannot take practical action to eradicate it, we have not made the disease notifiable. Carriers showing no symptoms are not uncommon, and a farmer could have the disease on his farm without knowing it. We could, therefore, be faced with the impossible position of prosecuting one farmer for failing to notify a disease which his animals have caught from a neighbour's stock, when we could not possibly take action against the neighbour who had no idea that he was in possession of infected animals.
There is no known treatment which will eliminate carriers. Indeed, some


carriers may result from the effective treatment of clinical disease. There is a vaccine against another salmonella, salmonella Dublin. This vaccine has been shown to reduce losses, and to cut the severity of the disease when used against salmonella typhimurium. It is, however, not completely effective.
Antibiotics are used therapeutically, and, in contact stock, prophylactically, at levels which can be dispensed on veterinary prescription only. However, the best way to tackle this problem in cattle is for farmers to adopt measures of good husbandry and hygiene in the planning and execution of their enterprises to prevent the disease appearing.
Gathering calves together in trucks, markets, dealers' premises and the like, increases the chances of cross-infection taking place at a time when they are most susceptible because of the stress associated with this trade and with long journeys. We must remember, however, that without the trade in calves we should have a larger number of calves sold for slaughter as "bobbies" by the farmer who bred them but did not want to rear them, instead of their going eventually to farmers, many miles away in some cases, who will rear them to add to our beef supplies. In any event, a ban on trading in calves would not arrest salmonella typhimurium.
However, effective and fairly simple measures can be taken to lessen the risks. If a single source of calves is available, so much the better. They should have received colostrum soon after birth, they should be at least 10 days old, and they should have been vaccinated before movement. They should be exposed to as little handling, mixing and travel as is possible. Direct farm-to-farm movements are better than purchases via markets.
Good husbandry after arrival should include warm, dry quarters and isolation in small groups away from older calves. Buildings should be planned or modified to ensure that disinfection can be thoroughly and expeditiously carried out.
Similar precautions should be taken for other livestock. Following the 1964 Annual. Price Review veterinary study groups were set up by the National Farmers' Union, the British Veterinary Association and the Ministry's veterinary services throughout the country at

regional and county levels to study disease problems and to advise farmers how they can be tackled. These groups have been very active in the past year on the subject of calf losses, including losses from salmonella typhimurium. The Ministry's Veterinary Investigation Service is also available to advise farmers through their veterinary surgeons on particular problems.
I turn now to antibiotics. Some criticism has been made of their use. The problem of what is called "infective drug resistance" has been mentioned. There is no evidence based on field experience to show that this problem is in any material degree due to the use of antibiotics in the treatment of animal disease. It would not, therefore, be right to prevent veterinary surgeons from using these drugs to cure or prevent illness in animals.
Specified antibiotics are scheduled under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, and can be obtained for animal use only on the prescription of a veterinary surgeon, with one exception which I shall mention shortly. We should not curtail the right of veterinary surgeons to use their own judgment in diagnosis and treatment and to use the best methods available to them. We must appreciate that failure to treat disease by the best methods could result in a considerably increased loss in farm livestock; animals would undergo more suffering; and there would be a greater risk of spread to humans. No one would deny the great benefits to agriculture that have resulted from the use of antibiotics. We could consider restricting the use of antibiotics in animals only if there were convincing evidence that human beings would benefit. This evidence does not exist.
I now turn to the exception to this very rigid system of control over antibiotics. Of the specified antibiotics, there are three that may be added at low levels to feed for pigs and poultry. Even so, their use for breeding stock is not allowed. Addition to feed is for the purpose of promoting the growth of the animals, and I must emphasise that this permission is limited to pigs and poultry at very low levels indeed, and is not available for calves.
I am not aware that a connection between this practice and the development of infective drug resistance has been


established by field experience. Nevertheless, the possibility has been brought up and is being very closely examined by a joint committee of the A.R.C. and N.R.C. I understand that this committee has reported to these two research councils. We are at the moment awaiting this report. The Ministry's Scientific Advisory Panel is also reviewing the use of antibiotics in food and agriculture. When we have the views of these two advisory bodies we will then consider the matter fully and decide whether any changes in the relevant Regulations are necessary.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not look on this matter lightly.

Mr. Kitson: Has the Minister any idea when these reports will be available?

Mr. Hoy: As I said, we are awaiting them. I hope that no time will be lost. I do not want to give an exact date, but we hope to receive them quickly.
That is why I was assuring him that when we have them we will lose no time in reaching a conclusion. We do not underestimate this problem. We are grateful to him for raising the matter, because it gives us the opportunity of assuring the public that we are giving it every attention possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.